The United India Insurance Co. ... vs Upendra @ Pintu S/O Dilchand @ ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2761 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 335 of 2013

Appellant               :          The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

                                   Through its Branch Manager, 2nd Floor,

                                   Mahadule Building, Opp. Mohata Petrol Pump,

                                   Medical Square, nagpur

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1.   Upendra @ Pintu s/o Dilchand @

Dulichand Dongare, aged about 25 years,

Occ: Driver, resident of 3, Ramkrushna

Nagar, Dighori, Umred Road, Nagpur

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Division IX,

18, Rabindran Sarani, Poddar Court, Gate

No. 4, 6th floor, Kolkata-1, through its Office

at National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional

Office No. 2, Pal Commercial Complex, 5th

floor, Ajani Chowk, Wardha Road, Nagpur

3. M/s Jamuna Transport Corporation

(owner of container/Truck No. WB-23-

6736), resident of 11, Pollock Street, 1st

floor, Kolkata (WB)

4. Sau Kantabai w/o Arun Nandanwar,

aged Major, Occ: Owner of TATA Sumo,

resident of Lal Darwaja, Tandapeth Nagar,

Nagpur

Shri M. R. Johrapurkar, Advocate for appellant

Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 1

Smt S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 2

Respondent no. 3 served

Shri Y. V. Nayyar, Advocate for respondent no. 4

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 6th June 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal challenges the

legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.9.2011 delivered in

Special Claim Petition No. 36 of 2008 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-2, Nagpur.

2. Said judgment disposes of the claim of respondent no. 1 arising

out of use of the motor vehicle involved in other claim petitions being Special

Claim Petitions No. 29 of 2008, 30 of 2008, 31 of 2008, 32 of 2008 and 33 of

2008. The other special claim petitions have been disposed of by this Court by a

common judgment and order passed in a bunch of First Appeals starting with

First Appeal No. 333 of 2013 on 15th April 2015. Since the claim in the present

petition has arisen out of the same accident and the same user of the vehicle, I

have no hesitation to hold that even the present appeal is covered by the

common judgment of this Court dated 15 th April 2015 delivered in other

matters. Learned counsel for the parties too agree to the same. Hence, it would

be appropriate that even this appeal is disposed of in terms of the same order as

passed in connected matters.

3. Before parting with this appeal, I find it necessary to take

cognizance of serious lapse committed by the Registry of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in the instant case.

A copy of the judgment and order which is impugned in the

present appeal and which is stated to be certified copy, has been filed along

with memo of appeal. One is aghast to see what is stated to be certified copy,

can never be described to be so for the reason that even by using a magnifying

glass, this order can hardly be read. It is almost illegible, invisible and

inscrutable. The order is impossible to read and it is very hard to make out

what is written in the order. The contents are so faint that the same can not

only be read with naked eyes, but with science or magic. Still, the concerned

officer has certified the copy to be a true copy of the original, prima facie, it

appears that the concerned officer has made a false statement and has even

attempted to mislead the parties by issuing such certification. To my mind,

prima facie, it is a gross lapse though I would refrain from saying that it is a

gross misconduct, for using such an expression may amount to usurping the

powers of the competent authority to proceed departmentally against the

encumbent concerned. But, this Court would expect the Principal District

Judge, Nagpur to take cognizance of the observations made by this Court,

enquire into the matter and proceed departmentally against the official found

guilty of such serious lapse.

Since typed copy of the impugned judgment and order is already

on record, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out certified

copy thereof from the record of this case so as to produce the same before the

Principal District Judge, Nagpur immediately.

4. In view of the above, I pass the following order:

Order

(1) The impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the

Member, motor Accident Claims Tribunal-2, Nagpur in Special Claim Petition

No. 36 of 2008 is set aside only for the purpose to enable the present appellant

to contest said proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.

(2) The appellant shall pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimants

before the Claims Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. The

amount of compensation deposited by the appellant in this Court shall be

transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The Claims Tribunal

shall permit the claimant to withdraw 25% of the total amount that has been

deposited by the appellant subject to furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction

of the Claims Tribunal by way of interim compensation.

(3) It is made clear that this Court has not examined the correctness of

the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and the proceedings shall be

decided without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

The rival contentions of the parties are kept expressly open in that regard. If the

amount of costs is not deposited by the appellant within the aforesaid period,

then clause (1) of this order shall not operate and the judgment passed by the

Claims Tribunal in the claim petition shall operate between the parties.

(4) The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to

expeditiously dispose of all the claim petitions remitted back to it and shall

dispose of the same preferably within six months from the date of this order.

(5) First Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

(6) Learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur shall initiate departmental

action in terms of observations contained in paragraph 3 of this judgment and is

requested to submit action taken report within three weeks from today. After

receipt of such report, the same be placed before this Court for its perusal.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi