Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anup And Another vs Sultan Singh And Others on 2 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050198
CWP-17012-2023 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:050198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107 CWP-17012-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.04.2024
ANUP AND ANOTHER
.........Petitioners
VERSUS
SULTAN SINGH AND OTHERS
........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present:- Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)
CM-4980-CWP-2024
The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the
application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-
prosecution.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 62 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. is condoned.
CM-4981-CWP-2024
The instant application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section
151 C.P.C. has been filed for recalling of the order dated 12.12.2023 vide
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050198
CWP-17012-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:050198
which the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contends
that the petitioner was out of station and a pass over could not be sought,
and, therefore, the matter was dismissed in default.
For the reasons stated in the said application, which is
supported by an affidavit of the petitioner, the same is allowed. The main
writ petition is restored to its original number.
CWP-17012-2023
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated
11.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the National Lok Adalat, Rewari in
favour of respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
vehemently argues that on 02.10.2016, the petitioners along with Yogita @
Sushila (since deceased) were coming in car bearing registration No. HR-
26AL 8880 on NH-15 at around 05.30 AM. The car was being driven by
petitioner No.1 at moderate speed and when they reached near village
Khaira, one Bharmal Ram son of Ramu Ram, who was taking his cows to
field from his home, petitioner No.1 turned the car to save cows coming in
front and respondent No.1 came driving his car on a very high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner and there was a direct hit of his car with the car
of the petitioners, resulting in death of Yogita @ Sushila on the spot and the
petitioners also sustained several injuries. An FIR No. 376 dated 02.10.2016
was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC against respondent
No.1.
3. A claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050198
CWP-17012-2023 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:050198
by the petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari
claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 60 Lakhs as the deceased was
about 31 years at the time of her death and she was drawing a monthly
income of Rs. 18,000/- from private sector and was also earning a further
sum of Rs.22,000/- per month from tuition. It is submitted that during the
pendency of the petition before the Tribunal, the counsel for the petitioners
got the same settled after getting his statement recorded that he is ready and
willing to settle the matter for an amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- as a lump sum
compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners
had not been taken into confidence by the counsel before getting his
statement recorded and that the settlement has been arrived at on a very
paltry compensation, which is insufficient.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to place on
record the power of attorney that was executed by the petitioners in favour
of their counsel, however, despite availing five opportunities, the power of
attorney has not been placed on record. A pointed query was also raised to
the counsel for the petitioners, as to whether the said power of attorney
authorises the Advocate to enter into a settlement on their behalf or not, to
which he fairly concedes. Further, counsel was also asked to respond as to
whether any proceedings of deficiency of service, or complaint against their
Advocate before the respective Bar Council has been initiated by the
petitioners against the lawyer, who purportedly entered into a settlement
without the consent of the petitioners and/ or as to whether any specific
instruction by the petitioners was issued to their counsel not to enter into
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050198
CWP-17012-2023 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:050198
any settlement. He responds that no such proceedings have been initiated by
the petitioners against their counsel representing them before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal as well as before the National Lok Adalat,
Rewari.
6. He, however, argues that the said settlement has been arrived at
for a meager compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/-, whereas the compensation of
Rs. 60,00,000/- has been prayed for by the petitioners.
7. There is, however, no evidence on the record, on the basis
whereof the computation of income as has been claimed by the petitioners
to be earned by the deceased Yogita @ Sushila, was at par, what has been
claimed by the petitioners. The income as claimed by the petitioners to the
tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month, which would work out to be Rs. 4,80,000/-
per annum, however, there is no permanent account number/ details of the
income tax returns that had ever been placed by the petitioners, either before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or before this Court on the basis
whereof it may be construed that the income as claimed by the petitioners
was the actual income earned by the deceased.
8. Be that as it may, the controversy revolves around the authority
vested in an Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and its extent
as per The Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 . This Court had already dealt with
such a matter in CWP No. 6419 of 2018 titled 'Suraj Kali Vs. Bimonthly
Lok Adalat and others', decided on 23.01.2024.
9. For the foregoing reasons and by placing reliance on the
judgment in the matter of 'Suraj Kali' (supra), I find that there is no
evidence placed by the petitioners on the Court file, on the basis whereof, it
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050198
CWP-17012-2023 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:050198
can be held that the said settlement had arrived at by the counsel for the
petitioners for and on behalf of the petitioners, was not authorised or was an
act of fraud. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
02.04.2024
Satyawan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
