Allowed

Mohd. Maqsood v. Jafruddin & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2011CR/4959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim in default without notice. Noting the petition was transferred from Gurgaon to Nuh without notice, the Court held this dismissal unsustainable and directed restoration of the petition for trial on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dismissing the claim petition in default were set aside, and the claim petition was directed to be restored and decided on merits.

Mohd. Maqsood Vs Jafruddin & Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 4959 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 21, 2011.

Mohd. Maqsood

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

Jafruddin and others.

¶7

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sarfraz Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Rajesh K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶12

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 05.04.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh vide which petition for compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by petitioner-claimant bearing MACT case No.63 of 18.12.2008 titled as Mohd.

¶15

¶16

CR No.4959 of 2010

¶17

Maqsood v. Jafruddin and others, was dismissed in default and the application filed by petitioner-claimant for restoration of the claim petition was also dismissed vide impugned order 12.04.2010.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh.

¶19

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the claim petition was pending before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Gurgaon. However, the same was transferred from Gurgaon to Nuh without issuing notice to the present petitioner-claimant and hence, petitioner-claimant could not appear before learned MACT, Nuh when the present petition was taken up by transfer by learned MACT, Nuh and however, without issuing notice to petitioner-claimant, the same was dismissed in default. It is further contended that when he came to know about the dismissal of the claim petition in default, he filed an application for restoration of the petition which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2010 on the ground that the same was filed late.

¶20

On the other hand, it has been argued that by learned counsel for the respondents that as no application for condonation of delay was filed by petitioner-claimant hence, learned MACT has rightly passed the order rejecting his prayer for restoration.

¶21

Order dated 05.04.2008 passed by learned MACT, Nuh vide which claim petition was dismissed in default, reads as under:-

¶22

“Case received by transfer. It be checked and registered. Case called several times since morning but none is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It is already 3.00 P.M. No further wait

¶23

¶24

CR No.4959 of 2010

¶25

is justified. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room.”

¶26

A bare perusal of the order shows that the present claim petition was received by transfer from Gurgaon and however, without issuing notice to claimant-petitioner, the same was dismissed in default by learned MACT, Nuh. No notice was issued to claimant either by MACT, Gurgaon or by MACT, Nuh. Hence, in view of these facts, there was sufficient ground for learned MACT, Nuh to restore the present petition. Claim of the petitionerclaimant cannot be thrown by dismissing the claim petition in default particularly in view of the fact that the petition was transferred from Gurgaon to Nuh without notice to petitioner-claimant. The impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and hence, the same are, hereby, set aside.

¶27

Learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nuh is directed to restore the claim petition of the petitioner-claimant to its original number and decide the same on merits as per law.

¶28

Parties are directed to appear before learned MACT, Nuh on 14.02.2011.

¶29

The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

January 21, 2011. 'om'

¶31

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Mohd. Maqsood v. Jafruddin & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Maqsood v. Jafruddin & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmukh Singh Vs Kamla Devi & Ors.

Mangat Singh Vs Diwan Singh & Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs Jagdev Singh

Rajinder Narang Vs Nand Kishore and Ors.

Baldeva Vs Hindu Khandan Mushtarkha Devat Ram

Hansi Improvement Trust Vs Narinder Kumar Jain and Ors.