Shad Anwar vs United India Insurance Co. & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1381 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                C.R.P. 44/2009 and CM No.4180/2009


SHAD ANWAR                                  ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Petitioner in person

                 versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS. ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
                            Advocate for the respondent
                            No.1

%                           Date of Decision : March 09, 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?

                            ORDER

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order

dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in

MACT Suit No.828/08/04 titled "Shamsuddin versus United India

Insurance Co. Ltd.", insofar as the said order directed the petitioner

to pay a sum of ` 10,000/- to Delhi Lawyers Welfare Fund as costs

and also recommended action against the petitioner by the Delhi Bar

Association and Bar Council of Delhi.

2. It emerges from the record that the petitioner, who is an

Advocate and was representing the claimant (the respondent No.4

herein) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid

MACT Suit No.828/08/04, had moved an application before the

Tribunal for recalling of order dated October 10, 2005. The said

application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated

29.01.2009, subject to the payment of costs of ` 10,000/- by the

petitioner himself and by the same order it was also directed that a

copy of the said order dated January 29, 2009 be sent to the Delhi Bar

Association as well as the Bar Council of Delhi for appropriate action

against the petitioner in failing to conduct the case of the appellant

inspite of having accepted the brief.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents No.1, 3

and 4 herein, who are duly served but are unrepresented. Having

regard to the nature of the relief sought, service on the respondent

No.2 (the driver of the alleged offending vehicle) was dispensed with

by order dated September 30, 2010.

4. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the claim

petition filed by the claimant has since culminated in an award in

favour of the claimant and the claimant has also received the awarded

amount. He further submits that the claimant has no grievance

whatsoever against the petitioner with regard to the conduct of the

case by him. He also submits that the costs of ` 10,000/- has been

deposited by him, as ordered by the learned Tribunal, for the default

in deposit of process fee for service of the respondents No.2 and 3 on

a few occasions. The proof of deposit of the same has been placed on

record.

5. The petitioner also points out that the notice was issued by the

learned Tribunal to the respondents No.1 to 3 for the first time by

order dated 06.10.2004 on process fee for service of all the

respondents being deposited by him. The said notice was returnable

on 6th January, 2005, and on the said date the report on the service of

notice was that the respondents No.2 and 3 were unserved. On 6th

January, 2005, fresh notice for 7th April, 2005 was issued to the

respondents No.2 and 3 and again on the said date, i.e., on 7 th April,

2005 for 18th July, 2005 and thereafter for 10th October, 2005, on

which dates he (the petitioner) defaulted in depositing the process fee.

By order dated 10th October, 2005, the learned trial court dismissed

the petition qua respondents No.2 and 3, but, as the matter had gone

for conciliation at the request of both the parties, the application to set

aside the said order dated 10.10.2005 was filed later on when it

became apparent that this matter could not be settled in conciliation.

6. The aforesaid facts are not refuted by the counsel for the

respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.

7. Having heard the parties and gone through the records of the

learned Tribunal, there is no manner of doubt that there was some

default on the part of the petitioner in not depositing process fee for

service of the respondents No.2 and 3, resulting in dismissal of the

petition qua the said respondents on 10th October, 2005. At the same

time, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner has been penalized

for the same and the costs imposed upon him have since been

deposited by him. It also cannot be lost sight of that the claim

petition has since culminated in an award in favour of the claimant

and the claimant has also received the award amount and has no

grievance against the petitioner of any nature whatsoever.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order insofar as it

directs appropriate action to be taken by the Delhi Bar Association as

well as the Delhi Bar Council against the petitioner is set aside.

C.R.P. 44/2009 and CM No.4180/2009 stand disposed of

accordingly.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) March 09, 2011 km