Delhi High Court
Usha Arora vs Harvinder Singh & Ors. on 31 January, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
Bench: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 228/2002
USHA ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
HARVINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
Advocate, for the respondent-
Insurance Company.
% Date of Decision : January 31, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
FAO No.228/2002 Page 1 of 4
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 9 th November, 2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North) in Claim Petition no.145/1997.
2. The sole contention of Mr. S.N. Parashar, the learned counsel for the appellant is that on 18th July, 2000, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had directed that the respondent no.1 be served by publication in the 'Nav Bharat Times' for 18th January, 2001, but by the impugned order dated 9th November, 2001 the learned Tribunal dismissed the case for non-prosecution, though an application had been filed by the petitioners/claimants for the change of the name of the newspaper on the ground that the cost of publication in the 'Nav Bharat Times' was very high. The learned Claims Tribunal, he submitted, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the publication charges had not been deposited without passing any order on the application of the petitioners.
3. I find that the records of the Tribunal bear out the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, which is also not FAO No.228/2002 Page 2 of 4 refuted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Thus, it is borne out from the records that the only ground for dismissal of the claim petition was that the publication charges had not been deposited.
4. In my view, it was not open to the learned Claims Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition merely on the above ground, more so, when an application for change of the name of the newspaper was pending before the learned Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the widow and the parents of the deceased, who, it is stated therein were rendered destitute after the death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 9 th November, 2001 is set aside and the claim petition is remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for conducting an enquiry in accordance with law after the service of the respondent No.1 by publication in accordance with law. Since the deceased died in the year 1996 and the claim petition pertains to the year 1997, the learned Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter on a FAO No.228/2002 Page 3 of 4 priority-basis and in any event, not later than six months from the date of the receipt of the records from this Court.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 14th February, 2011.
7. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company seeks liberty to file an application for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 13th January, 1998 passed against the Insurance Company by the learned Claims Tribunal. He may do so within one week of his entering appearance before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 14th February, 2011.
8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
9. LCR be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith through special messenger with a copy of this order.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) January 31, 2011 sk FAO No.228/2002 Page 4 of 4