Ash v. Anupama Avinash Kale & Ors.

Shri Nagesh Chavan and Shri T.S. Ingale for the Petitioner. Shri B.A. Walimbe for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2010 P.C: . The Petitioner is the Opponent No.2 in a Claim Petition filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Petitioner did not file Written Statement in the Claim Petition of the year 2004. Thereafter, an application was made by the Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order passed by the Tribunal and an order for proceeding with the Claim Petition without written statement of the Petitioner. By the impugned order dated 9th July, 2009, the said application has been rejected.

On 2nd March, 2010, when this Writ Petition was heard for admission, the Advocate appearing for the Original Claimants pointed out 2 that though the award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is passed against the Petitioner long back, the Petitioner has not complied with the said award. On 22nd March, 2010, this Court passed a detailed order recording the aforesaid facts. The paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order read thus: ­ “3.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not complied with the said Award. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time of three months to comply with the said Award. However, as the claim petition is of the year 2004, time of three months cannot be granted. By way of indulgence, time is granted till 4th May 2010 to the petitioner to deposit the amount with the tribunal as per the interim Award. Petition to be placed on board on 4th May 2010. As the petitioner has invoked power of superintendence of this Court, unless compliance is made by the petitioner with the Award under section 140 of the said Act of 1988, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Stand over till 4th May 2010. Ad­interim relief granted on 22nd September 2009 will continue to operate till then.”

Today when the Petition is called out, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks time of one month to deposit the amount as per the interim award. In the Claim Petition of the year 2004 filed by the Claimants claiming compensation on account of death of the husband of the 1st Respondent and the father of the 2nd to 4 Respondents, even the award made under Section 140 of the said Act of 1988 has not been complied with by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not challenged the said 3 award. The Petitioner did not file Written Statement. Therefore, an order was passed by the Tribunal on 2nd February, 2006 that the Claim Petition will proceed without written statement. An application for setting aside the said order was made by the Petitioner on 9th July, 2009 which has been rejected by the impugned order. Thus, not only that the Claim Petition of the year 2004 claiming compensation on account of fatal accident is delayed, the claimants have not received compensation under Section 140 of the said Act of 1988. In view of what is stated in the order dated 22nd March, 2010, no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for protecting such a litigant. The Writ Petition is rejected.

(A.S.OKA, J)