Gujarat High Court
Widow Kantaben Prabhudas ... vs Anandbhai Bhagwanbhai Chavda on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/SCA/2012/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2012 of 2021
================================================================
WIDOW KANTABEN PRABHUDAS GONDALIYA
Versus
ANANDBHAI BHAGWANBHAI CHAVDA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 03/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Siraj Gori for Mr.Amar D.
Mithani for the applicant.
2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 18.07.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.), Bhavnagar in Misc. Claim
Application No.348 of 2019.
3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow
the present petition;
(B)The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to quash and set aside the impugned
Judgment and order dated 18.07.2020, rendered in
Misc. Claim Application No.348/2019 (Annexure 'A') and
C/SCA/2012/2021 ORDER
be pleased to allow the said application as prayed for in
the interest of justice;
(C)Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as
the nature and circumstances may require, in the
interest of justice.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1 In the vehicular accident dated 06.02.1997, Shri
Prabhudasbhai Vanmalidar Gondaliya lost his life. His
widow and the children - petitioners preferred Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.458 of 1997, before the
M.A.C.T. Bhavnagar, which came to be allowed by the
Judgment and Award dated 29.06.2000, thereby, a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- with 12% interest was awarded,
whereby, the respondent no.2 and 3 held liable to pay
the compensation.
4.2 Pursuant to the order dated 22.01.2001, the amount
of Rs.7,00,000/- was deposited in Bank, as Fixed
Deposit Receipt and an amount of Rs.6,59,902/- was
directed to be disbursed to the claimant - petitioners. By
a communication dated 10.04.2001, the M.A.C.T.,
Bhavnagar has intimated the Bank not to pay any
amount on the F.D.R., as First Appeal No.3532 of 2000
was preferred by the Insurance Company.
4.3 Against the Judgment and Award, passed in the main
Claim Petition, the First Appeal No.3532 of 2020
preferred by the New Indian Assurance Company, was
decided on 18.04.2012, whereby, the appeal was
C/SCA/2012/2021 ORDER
allowed and the amout deposited by the Insurance
Company was directed to be refunded with a further
direction that if the amount is withdrawn by the original
claimant, the same shall not be recovered and it was
kept open for the Insurance Company to recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle - State.
4.4 The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6759 of 2013
was preferred by the respondent No.2 which was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.04.2013.
4.5 In the meantime, one of the claimant Shri Mahendra
Prabhudasbhai Gondaliya expired on 30.06.2011.
4.6 It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the
earlier Judgment and Award, an amount of
Rs.13,72,224/- was deposited and out of the same, a
sum of Rs.6,59,902/- was disbursed to the claimants,
while the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was kept in Fixed
Deposit Receipt. It appears that as the amount was
returned to the Insurance Company, the Bank of
Maharashtra, Junagadh Branch deposited the amount
in the Tribunal vide Draft No.61312 dated 21.09.2012.
It appears that in December, 2015, the respondent No.2,
deposited the amount of Rs.29,29,206/- in the Tribunal.
4.7 The claimants preferred Misc. Claim Petition No.348
of 2019 in Claim Case No.458 of 1997, inter alia praying
that the amount of Rs.29,29,206/- be paid to the
claimants, as the period of 21 years has already passed.
4.8 In Misc. Application No.348 of 2019, the respondent
C/SCA/2012/2021 ORDER
No.2 - State Government vide Exhibit 7, on 17.05.2019
submitted the reply, inter alia submitting that after
deducting the earlier paid amount to the claimants,
there is no objection, if the rest of amount is paid to the
claimants. The Tribunal by order dated 18.07.2020,
disposed of Misc. Claim Application No.348 of 2019,
directing that the applicants are entitled to get the
amount, after deducting the amount paid to the
applicants.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.07.2020,
the petitioners have preferred this petition.
6. Having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal,
more particularly in terms of paragraph no.7 of the
impugned judgement and award, the observations and
findings of the Tribunal do not inspire any interference.
There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal dated 18.07.2020 in Misc Claim Application
No.348 of 2019 requiring any interference and exercise of
powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. The petition fails and, is therefore, required to be
dismissed in limine. Hence, accordingly the petition is
dismissed.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
VARSHA DESAI
