Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2337/2010 3/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2337 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2575 of 2000
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2349 of 2010
=========================================================
GSRTC
- Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHANTABEN
WD/O RUPABHAI JIVABHAI BAJANIYA & 10 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH H SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
11.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 29/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
above mentioned applications are related to and have been filed along
with First Appeal (Stamp) Nos.2575 to 2587 of 2000.
The
applications have been filed with a prayer that the award dated
30/11/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.209 of 1987 and allied
claim petitions may be set aside and the matters may be remanded to
the Tribunal for appropriate orders. The grounds urged in support of
the applications are that the claim petitions from which the present
applications arise, were effectively heard by the Tribunal and after
full fledged hearing the award was passed. It is claimed by the
applicants that the judgment is indivisible and that therefore the
entire award is required to be set aside since one of the opponents
herein i.e. original claimant had expired while the proceedings were
pending before the Tribunal, however, the heirs/legal representatives
of the said deceased was not brought on record and that therefore the
award came to be passed against a dead person person which renders
the award null and void qua the deceased opponent claimant. However,
since the award is indivisible the entire award is required to be set
aside. On such averments, the applications came to be filed in the
year 2000.
The
aforesaid details go to show that the first appeals with which the
above applications are connected have been preferred against the
award passed in November, 1999. Some of the applications are filed
with a request to bring heirs/legal representatives on record while
some of the applications in this group are filed seeking condonation
of delay and some on the ground of payment. The fact remains that
since the date of filing the applications have never been prosecuted
and the applications have remained idle, any step to get the
applications heard and appropriate orders passed have not been taken
by the appellants.
The
award which was passed almost 11 years before must have been executed
by now.
It
is pertinent to note that in another group of similar applications
arising from the same group of claims petitions, by order dated
5/3/2010 Rule was issued with a view to giving an opportunity to the
applicants and also with a view to finding out the status of the
award. However, in the said group the appellants did not bother to
pay the process fee also. Again, even after indulgence shown by the
Court, the appellants remained dormant and did not take any action to
pay the process fee. Ultimately the Court was constrained to dismiss
the applications for non prosecution by order dated 31/3/2010.
Upon
hearing the learned advocates it appears that in present group also
even if the process is issued, ultimately same history is going on to
be repeated and thus application after some time will meet the same
fate.
As
noted above, the award passed in November, 1999 must have been
executed by now. Hence, present applications, even if entertained,
would not serve any effective purpose. The applicants appellants are
not in a position to state anything with regard to the status of the
award. They also have not taken trouble to find out from their own
record and clarify as to whether the compensation amounts have been
already paid or not. The fate of the claimants is also unknown.
Considering
the fact that for about 10 years any action have not been taken by
the applicants appellants in respect of above mentioned applications,
and for all these years the applicants have remained negligent, it
follows that the applicants are not interested in prosecuting the
applications further.
Thus,
keeping the development which took place with regard to the Civil
Application Nos.1686 to 1698 of 2005 wherein the above referred
orders dated 5/3/2010 and 31/3/2010 were passed, it appears that it
would not be improper or unjust in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case that present applications are allowed to
meet the same fate. Hence, the applications are dismissed for non
prosecution.
It
is however, clarified that in present group as well as in earlier
group of case (which came to be disposed of by order dated 31/3/2010)
it would be open to the applicants to move appropriate application
within reasonable time from today for appropriate orders if the
applicants appellants can find out the status of the award and can
state on affidavit the exact status of the award, and also as to
whether awarded amounts have been deposited or not and disbursed or
not and if the awarded amount remains deposited with the Tribunal or
invested, then such request for further appropriate orders may be
considered by the Court. The applicants also should be ready with
details of heirs/legal representatives in case of deceased opponents
and with latest and correct addresses of the opponents.
With
the aforesaid clarification, the Civil Applications are dismissed for
non prosecution.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ila)
Top