Bombay High Court
Alka Ashok Dighe And Anothers vs Meenanath Sitaram Kute And Others on 2 September, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 11696/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11696 OF 2014
1. Alka Wd/o Ashok Dighe,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Babaleshwar,Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Sumit S/o Ashok Dighe,
Age: 3 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. Babaleshwar, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
(The Petitioner No. 1 for
herself and minor guardian
Mother for Petitioner No. 2.) ....Petitoners
Versus
1. Meenanath Sitaram Kute,
Age: Major, Ouuc: Business,
R/o. Khawjapur, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. The Legal Manager, Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPP, Rico
Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur,
Rajsthan 302022.
3. Usha wd/o Ashok Dighe,
Age 42 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Sakuri, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. Amruta D/o Ashok Dighe,
Age 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Sakuri, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
5. Saurabh s/o. Ashok Dighe,
Age 18 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Sakuri, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar. .....Respondents.
...
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:51:46 :::
WP No. 11696/2014
2
Advocate for Petitioners : Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
Advocate for Respondents 3 to 5 : A.S. Gandhi
Advocate for Respondent 2 : S.G. Chapalgaonker
...
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 2nd September, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2)
The petition is filed to challenge the order made by
the learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal, Kopargaon,
District Ahmednagar in Claim Petition No. 57/2013. The
application filed by petitioners at Exh. 13 to give them
permission to come on record in the petition is rejected by the
Claims Tribunal after hearing both the parties.
3) The claim is filed by present respondents - Smt.
Usha Ashok Dighe etc. in respect of death of one Ashok Dighe.
Smt. Usha is claiming that she is wife of Ashok Dighe and other
two claimants are issues of Usha born from Ashok.
4) In the application filed by the present petitioners,
Smt. Alka has contended that she is wife of Ashok and the other
applicant Sumit is son born to her from Ashok. She contended
WP No. 11696/2014
that she is also entitled to get compensation and so, she needs
to be made party to the petition.
5) It appears that before Tribunal birth certificate in
respect of Sumit was produced and the certificate was showing
that Alka Rohidas Landge was his mother and Rohidas Landge
was father. Date of birth of Sumit was shown as 21.9.2010 and
the birth was reported to authority on 30.9.2010. It is the case of
Alka that Rohidas Landge is her father and due to oversight the
name of father was given as the name of husband of Alka to the
authority, but that mistake is corrected subsequently. The
correct certificate is produced on the record and except the
corrections of the name of Alka and the name of father, other
information is kept intact and names are only corrected. Alka
also wants to rely on the other circumstance like ration card
showing that in the year 2014 new ration card was issued on the
basis of previous ration card to the family of Ashok.
6) The learned counsel for respondents submitted that
in the year 2014 Ashok was dead, but his name was still shown
in ration card and this record is doubtful in nature. This
circumstance need not be considered in the proceeding like
present one. When the application is filed for allowing the third
WP No. 11696/2014
party to join the proceeding and there are aforesaid contentions,
it is always desirable to give opportunity to the said party to
prove the contention and that needs to be done. This Court holds
that aforesaid record was sufficient to allow the present
petitioners to join the proceeding as party respondent and
Claims Tribunal has committed error in rejecting the application.
Further compensation amount also changes if there were more
dependents to the deceased and this circumstance cannot be
said as adverse against the petitioners.
5) In the result, petition is allowed. The order made by
the learned Presiding Officer of Claims Tribunal is hereby set
aside. Aforesaid application is allowed. The petitioners are
allowed to join as a party respondent. The point of entitlement of
the petitioners to get compensation as heirs of Ashok is kept
open. The Tribunal is not to get influenced due to some
observations made by this Court in this proceeding. The Tribunal
is expected to dispose of the proceeding within six months from
the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
