Usha Arora vs Harvinder Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 548 Del

                                     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)

: 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

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

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