Allowed

Lrs of Fateh Mohd. v. Kailash Chand

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CMAP/21/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the application of the legal representatives of a deceased claimant in a motor accident compensation case. The court directed the Tribunal to disburse the amount deposited by the insurance company to the widow, as the deceased's minor children consented to this arrangement.

What did the court decide?

The application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is allowed; legal representatives are taken on record; the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount to the petitioner-widow on a fresh application.

Lrs of Fateh Mohd. Vs Kailash Chand — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8324]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Misc. Application No. 21/2022

¶4

Lrs Of Fateh Mohd., (Deceased)

¶5

Jaitun Bano W/o Late Sh. Fateh Mohd, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Binota, Tehsil Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh.

¶6

Abid Mohammed S/o Late Sh. Fateh Mohd., Aged About 32 Years, R/o Binota, Tehsil Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh.

¶7

Azad Mohammed S/o Late Sh. Fateh Mohd, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Binota, Tehsil Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh.

¶8

Rubina Bano D/o Late Sh. Fateh Mohd., Aged About 23 Years, R/o Binota, Tehsil Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Kailash Chand S/o Udairam Ji, R/o Sukhwara Thana And Tehsil Bhadesar, Distt. Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶12

National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	D.S. Gaur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	KuldeepVaishnav

¶15

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶16

16/02/2024

¶17

Office had pointed out a defect that the civil misc. application has not been attested and affidavit in support of the same has not been filed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a fresh application along with the affidavit and attestation has been filed by him which has been registered with Inward No.3/2022. He therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the original application (inward No.7581).

¶19

In view of the submission made, the application (inward No.3/2022) is permitted to be taken on record and that of inward no.7581 is dismissed as withdrawn.

[2024:RJ-JD:8324]

[CMAP-21/2022]

(2 of 4)

The present application has been filed on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased-claimant Fateh Mohd. with a prayer for direction for disbursal of the award amount to them.

¶24

The facts are that an award was passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhittorgarh on 14.02.2013 in favour of Shri Fateh Mohd. Against the said award, an appeal for enhancement of the same was filed by Fateh Mohd. before this Court. Because of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, the appeal was decided in the Lok Adalat vide order/award dated 09.03.2019 and the respondent-insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant as a full and final settlement.

¶25

However, even before passing of the above order, appellantFateh Mohd. had already expired on 21.06.2015 but the said fact was not brought on record and the matter was decided in Lok Adalat. In pursuance to the order/award dated 09.03.2019, the amount was deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal. An application by the legal representatives of appellantFateh Mohd. was then filed before the learned Tribunal for disbursal of the amount to them. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2019 by the learned Tribunal on the premise that the award in question, if any, was in favour of Fateh Mohd. and if the claimants seek disbursal of the amount to them, they should seek appropriate orders from this Court.

¶26

Hence, the present application has been moved before this Court.

[CMAP-21/2022]

[2024:RJ-JD:8324]

(3 of 4)

An application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC has also been preferred for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased-Fateh Mohd.

¶31

Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company admits that the complete award amount had been deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal.

¶32

It is clear on record that on the date when a settlement was arrived into on behalf of the appellant, he was not surviving. Meaning thereby, no consent of the appellant for the said settlement could have been recorded. But then, it is also an admitted position that the settlement has been acted upon by the Insurance Company and even the legal representatives of the deceased appellant have acceded to and accepted the same.

¶33

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it proper to take the legal representatives of deceased-Fateh Mohd. on record. The application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC is hence, allowed . The legal representatives of deceased Fateh Mohd. are permitted to be taken on record.

¶34

A perusal of the record shows that deceased Fateh Mohd. has left behind four legal representatives-his wife, two major sons and one major daughter. Alongwith the application for disbursal of the amount, a consent letter/affidavit on behalf of sons and daughter of deceased Fateh Mohd. was also filed before the learned Tribunal with the submission that the award amount be disbursed to their mother Jaitun Bano and they have no objection to the same.

¶35

[2024:RJ-JD:8324]

¶36

[CMAP-21/2022]

¶37

In view of the fact that all the three children of deceased Fateh Mohd. are major and have given their consent for disbursal of the amount to their mother, it would be in the interest of justice that the amount as deposited by the Insurance Company be disbursed to Jaitun Bano, the widow of deceased Fateh Mohd.

¶38

In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the present matter, the present application is allowed . The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount as deposited by the Insurance Company to Jaitun Bano, the widow of deceased Fateh Mohd on a fresh application being filed by her for the said purpose.

¶39

Let the appropriate orders be passed within a period of two weeks from the said application been filed.

¶40

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶41

59-T.Singh/-

Lrs of Fateh Mohd. v. Kailash Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Fateh Mohd. v. Kailash Chand

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

Icici Lambard Motor Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ansi Devi

Smt.Jeevni and Anr. Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.

Smt. Vali Bai Vs Mohan Singh Rathore and Ors.

Suresh Sharma Vs Tata Finance Ltd.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Maniram

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Anek Kanwar