Quashed

Uganti and Others v. M a C T Dausa

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2024CW/5877/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Jaipur quashed the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which rejected a petition to recall a compromise order obtained without the petitioner's authorization and signatures. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed; the order dated 11.05.2000 is quashed and set aside; the claim petition is remitted to the Tribunal to be decided on merits after due notice and hearing within one month.

Uganti and Others Vs M a C T Dausa — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46939]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5877/2003

¶4

Smt. Uganti widow of Shri Prem Prakash, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Jharna, Tehsil Sikarai, District Dausa.

¶5

Pinki D/o Late Shri Prem Prakash aged about 2 years, through her next friend and natural guardian Smt.Uganti Widow of Shri Prem Prakash R/o Village Jharna, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, District Dausa.

¶9

Virendra Kumar S/o Kanwarpal R/o Junkikheda, Thana Jangseth, District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) Driver.

¶10

Sudhir Kumar S/o Ramkishan R/o Bhonkarhedi, District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.)

¶11

Pradeep Kumar S/o Jamna lal, R/o Village Bhionkarhedi, District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) (Registered Owner).

¶12

Oriental Assurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur.

¶13

Mool Chand S/o Sohanlal, aged 52 years.

¶14

Smt. Soni Wife of Moolchand

¶15

Both resident of village Jharna, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

¶18

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶19

Order

¶20

13/11/2024

¶21

The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") by which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order passed on the basis of compromise, has been rejected.

[2024:RJ-JP:46939]

[CW-5877/2003]

(2 of 3)

The contents of the writ petition indicate that husband of the petitioner met with a road accident and died, and thereafter, a claim seeking compensation was submitted before the Tribunal wherein at the instance of the counsel for the claimant-petitioner, a compromise took place between the parties and it was agreed by the counsel for the claimant-petitioner appearing before the Tribunal that a lump sum amount of Rs.1,55,000/- would be the sufficient to compensate the claimant. 3. The aforesaid compromise was executed during proceeding of Lok Adalat. The petitioner submitted an application stated therein that she was not satisfied with the amount in question, hence under these circumstances, an application was submitted by her to review and recall the original order on the pretext that the petitioners never instructed and authorized the counsel to compromise the matter on their behalf. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal on the technical count that the order passed on the basis of compromise cannot be recalled.

¶26

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2000, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of this writ petition. Perusal of the record indicates that the compromise is not bearing the signatures of the petitioners and looking to the claim raised by the petitioners and looking to the young age of the deceased, the petitioners were not satisfied with the meager amount of compromise of Rs.1,55,000/- and looking to the fact that an averment has been made in the recalling application that the petitioners never instructed nor authorized their counsel to settle the dispute on their behalf, hence, under these

¶27

[2024:RJ-JP:46939]

¶28

[CW-5877/2003]

¶29

circumstances, the order dated 11.05.2000 is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

In view of the above, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on its merit, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

¶31

Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the parties and they are not aware about passing of this order, the Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the claimants as well as the respondents and after service of notices upon them, the Tribunal shall make all possible endavours to expedite the proceedings of the claim petition and try to decide the claim petition within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties before it.

¶32

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the petitioners and Tribunal for necessary compliance.

¶33

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

Aayush Sharma /24

Uganti and Others v. M a C T Dausa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uganti and Others v. M a C T Dausa

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

Kashmir Singh Andanr Vs Chimman Singh Andors

Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Ghasilal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Prasad Swami S/O Shri Onkar Das Swami Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Singh Brothers Vs R S R D Corpn

Hindustan Petroleum Corporatio Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Deity of Temple Govind Devji Vs State of Raj and Ors.