Rajasthan High Court
Shakuntla Seegar W/O Late Sh. Prem ... vs Ku. Isha D/O Late Subhash Chandra on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1792/2021
Shakuntla Seegar W/o Late Sh. Prem Singh, Aged About 43
Years, R/o 38, Nandgaon Nath Ki Thadi, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ku. Isha D/o Late Subhash Chandra, R/o Plot No. 38,
Nand Gaon Colony, Niwaru Road, Jhotwada, Jaipur
Presently Residing At Plot No. 3, Goras Bhandar Ke
Saamne Wali Gali Shiv Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.
(Rajasthan)
2. Kumari Sumita D/o Late Sh. Subhash Chandra, Deceased
3. Prem Singh S/o Late Sh. Subhash Chandra, (Deceased)
4. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Raghunath, R/o Ward No. 3 Chomu,
Jaipur And Sargote, Sikar Haal Mulajim Marfat Jhabarmal
S/o Sh. Pemaram, R/o Simarla Jager, Police Station
Singas, Jaipur.
5. Narayan Ram S/o Sh. Hariram, R/o Sargote,
Srimadhopur, Sikar.
6. Harfool S/o Sh. Hariram, R/o Sargote, Srimadhopur Sikar.
7. Jhabarmal S/o Sh. Pemaram, R/o Sargote, Srimadhopur,
Sikar.
8. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Anand Bhawan,
Sansar Chandra Road, Through Senior Divisional Manager
Cover Note 119829
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Sanghi, through VC
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
25/01/2022
1. Appellant has filed an application for seeking leave to appeal
challenging the award dated 30.05.2018 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Application
No.586/2004 in favour of claimants.
2. The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that Mr.
Subhash Chandra and her wife Smt. Bhavri Devi met with an
accident on 21.06.2004, wherein Subhash Chandra died on the
(2 of 4) [CMA-1792/2021]
spot and Bhavri Devi had died later. Subhash Chandra and Bhavri
Devi were survived by their natural heirs and legal representatives
two daughters and one son namely Isha, Sumita, Prem Singh. All
three natural heirs (legal representatives), who were dependant
on their parents (both deceased), filed two claim petitions on
22.09.2004 under Section 140/166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
During the pendency of both claim petitions, Prem Singh who was
son of deceased, died on 14.05.2006 and his name was deleted.
The appellant claims that she entered into marriage with Prem
Singh on 20.04.2006, it means near about a month prior to his
death on 14.05.2006, and therefore, in place of claimant No.3-
Prem Singh, she should have been impleaded as his legal
representative, but other two claimants did not informed her
about claim petitions and she was not impleaded.
3. Both claim petitions were finally allowed vide judgment dated
18.08.2006 and there against Insurance Company filed appeals.
Appeals were remanded vide order dated 21.07.2016 to consider
Issue Nos.1 and 3 afresh. After the remand, the Tribunal has
decided both claim petitions finally vide judgment dated
30.05.2018 and awarded compensation of Rs.17,35,680/-. In the
meanwhile, another daughter Sumita was also died, therefore, the
whole compensation was paid and received by daughter-Isha, who
is respondent No.1 herein.
4. It appears from the record that after deciding both claim
petitions vide judgment dated 18.08.2006, the appellant filed
review application before the Tribunal on 20.08.2007 and during
pendency of review application, appellant entered into re-marriage
on 25.11.2014. Thereafter, review petition was dismissed on
05.06.2018. The dismissal of review application, seeking review of
(3 of 4) [CMA-1792/2021]
judgment dated 18.08.2006 has attained finality. Side by side
when both claim petitions were remanded by High Court vide
order dated 21.07.2016. The appellant also filed an application on
16.11.2017 before the Tribunal to substitute herself in place of
deceased-Prem Singh, claiming her to be sole legal representative
of Prem Singh. Before filing application, admittedly the appellant
had entered into second marriage on 25.11.2014, therefore, the
Tribunal dismissed her application vide order dated 19.04.2018,
observing that since the appellant has entered into re-marriage,
she was no more legal representative of deceased-Prem Singh on
the date of filing of application. Appellant challenged the order of
dismissal dated 19.04.2018 before the High Court by filing S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.11432/2018 and this Court dismissed the
same vide order dated 19.08.2021, obviously for the obvious
reason that claim petitions were finally decided vide judgment
dated 30.05.2018. However, the appellant was given liberty to
approach before appropriate forum for vindication of her rights.
5. Now appellant, taking benefit of such liberty granted vide
order dated 19.08.2021 as mentioned above, has filed the present
application seeking leave to appeal against final award dated
30.05.2018 passed in aforesaid claim petitions.
6. Heard counsel for appellant.
7. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of claim petitions
i.e. 22.09.2004, appellant was neither dependant of the deceased
persons nor was their legal representative. It is also not disputed
that on the date of filing of application for impleadment in claim
petition on 16.11.2017, appellant had entered into re-marriage on
25.11.2014 therefore, on that day also appellant was neither legal
representative nor dependant of deceased and was not at all a
(4 of 4) [CMA-1792/2021]
necessary or proper party as claimants. Application of appellant,
for seeking impleadment as claimant in place of Prem Singh, was
dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.04.2018 which has
attained finality. The review application filed by petitioner has
already been dismissed on 05.06.2018 and these proceedings
have attained finality.
8. In that view of matter, this Court is not inclined to grant
leave to appellant to assail award dated 30.05.2018 by way of
appeal. It is not in dispute that award dated 30.05.2018 was well
in knowledge of appellant, however this appeal with an application
for seeking leave to appeal has been filed on 20.09.2021, which is
barred by limitation also. In that view of matter, rights of
appellant whatsoever, have already been adjudicated and claim
petitions which have already been decided, may not be allowed to
be revived on flimsy rights.
9. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and after taking into
consideration all the aspects, this Court is not inclined to entertain
application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Consequentially the appeal also stand dismissed.
10. Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/116
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
