Bombay High Court
Sheikh Haidar Sheikh Abdulla And ... vs Smt. Rekhabai Rushikesh Meshram ... on 20 June, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa997.11.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.997 OF 2011
1. Sheikh Haidar Sheikh Abdulla,
Aged 65 years, owner,
Occupation : Business.
2. Shaikh Ajahar Sheikh Haidar,
Aged 35 years,
Occupation : Driver.
Both residents of Shahar Ward Tumsar,
Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara.
(Original defendants Nos.1 and 2). : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
1. Smt. Rekhabai Rushikesh Meshram,
Aged 59 years,
Occupation : Household.
2. Kailash Rushikesh Meshram,
Aged 38 years.
3. Miss Sharda Rushikesh Meshram,
Aged 36 years.
4. Deepak Rushikesh Meshram,
Aged 34 years.
5. Sandeep Rushikesh Meshram,
Aged 38 years.
All residents of Indira Nagar Tumsar,
Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara
6. United India Insurance Company Limited
Branch Office, Atri Mansion,
Rail Toli Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:05:02 :::
J-fa997.11.odt 2/5
7. Office of Taluka Agriculture Officer Tumsar,
Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara.
8. The District Superintendent Officer,
Agriculture Office, Bhandara,
Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Bhandara,
Tahsil and District Bhandara. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
Shri S.B. Bissa, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 20
JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for the
appellant, Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.6. None
appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 though duly noticed for final
hearing.
2. Perused the record of the case including the impugned
judgment and order.
3. The main objection taken in this appeal is that the judgment
and order dated 21st February, 2006 passed in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.164/1999 by the learned Member of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bhandara is illegal as it has been rendered without
giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
J-fa997.11.odt 3/5
4. According to Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. and Shri
Joharapurkar, learned counsel engagement of a particular lawyer by the
appellants as well as claimants in the petition is a matter of record. But,
according to them, the appellants were not vigilant to defend themselves
and, therefore, they deserve no mercy from this Court.
5. Considering the rival arguments, the only point which would
require determination is :
Whether the impugned judgment and order are
vitiated because of denial of proper opportunity of
hearing to the appellants ?
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that
one Shri Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocate was engaged by the appellants to
represent them in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.164/1999 and this
was done by them by duly signing vakalatnama of Shri Iqbal Siddiqui,
Advocate. He submits that the appellants, after they signed the
vakalatnama, were rest assured that their interest would be properly
taken care of by the said Advocate as he had done earlier when he
appeared on behalf of the appellants in two consumer cases being UTP
No.254/2000 and A. No.1304/2001 arising out of UTP No.254/2000.
But, the faith reposed by the appellants in the said Advocate was not
respected and the Advocate accepted vakalatnama given to him by the
claimants in this matter i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 5 and without informing
the appellants, filed claim on behalf of these respondents seeking
J-fa997.11.odt 4/5
compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, so
submits learned counsel for the appellants. He also submits that it was
about 5 years later from the date of impugned judgment and order that
the appellants, who were utterly surprised, learnt about the betrayal of
faith committed by this advocate and then the appellants rushed to this
Court by filing an application for condonation of delay together with
memo of appeal and the delay was condoned by this Court by
considering the plight of the appellants resulting from breach of faith
committed by their Advocate. Thus, he submits that this is a fit case for
remand to the Tribunal for a decision afresh in the matter. Of course,
this is not entirely agreed to by learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.7 and
8 as it is his submission that the appellants were not completely vigilant.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that Shri Iqbal Siddiqui,
Advocate had represented the appellants in two consumer cases, namely,
UTP No.254/2000 and A. No.1304/2001 arising from UTP No.254/2000.
There is also no dispute about the fact that the Claim Petition filed under
Section No.166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by Shri Iqbal
Siddiqui, Advocate. In these circumstances, there is no reason for this
Court to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants
that the appellants had all the while acted in good faith and had engaged
Advocate Iqbal Siddiqui for representing them in the instant case little
knowing that the claim Petition was actually filed by none other than
Shri Iqbal Siddiqui himself. Even these facts are noted by this Court
J-fa997.11.odt 5/5
when it allowed the condonation of delay application on 13.9.2011.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order is enough to
show that these appellants were not properly represented before the
Tribunal and that they have been shown as absent all throughout.
Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and order have
been rendered without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
appellants and thus they stand vitiated in law and deserve to be quashed
and set aside. The point is answered accordingly.
9. The appeal is allowed.
10. The impugned judgment and order are hereby quashed and
set aside.
11. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a decision
afresh, after giving proper opportunity to all the parties of submitting
their respective cases before the Tribunal.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3 rd
July, 2017.
13. The appeal is allowed with costs.
14. The amount deposited in this Court by the appellants is
permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants.
JUDGE
okMksns
