Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Patel vs Thakor on 20 December, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/13474/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13474 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

PATEL
DHARMENDRABHAI KANTIBHAI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

THAKOR
MOHANJI CHHANAJI & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
AV PRAJAPATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/12/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

The
petitioner is the original claimant. He filed claim petition against
respondents herein for allegedly having suffered injuries in a
vehicular accident. Claim was filed way back in the year 1991. It is
the case of the petitioner that before the Lok Adalat, claim
petition was compromised between the petitioner and insurance
company for sum of Rs.15,500/- on 14.3.1993. However, the Insurance
Company did not deposit the said amount and ultimately claim
petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.9.2001.
According to the petitioner, he did not know about such dismissal.
His advocate used to assure him that whenever claim petition is
taken up for hearing, he would be informed. Eventually other
claimants who had also received injuries during same accident
received an order of compensation in the year 2009, thereupon the
petitioner came to know about the proceedings. On inquiry, it was
found that case had been dismissed in the year 2001. The petitioner
thereupon filed application for restoration and delay condonation.
Claims Tribunal dismissed the application by a reasoned order dated
16.4.2010. Hence the petition.

From
the record, it clearly emerges that alleged incident took place on
11.4.1991. The Claim Petition was dismissed after pendency of may be
ten years. In the meantime as per the petitioner, there was a
compromise in the Lok Adalat. If Lok Adalat had already resolved the
disputes, I fail to see how Claim Petition could have been kept
alive. In any case, there is nothing on record to establish such
compromise. In any case, tribunal proceeded further with the claim
petition and found that neither the petitioner nor his advocate were
interested in prosecuting the claim. Another nine years passed
before the petitioner moved the Court for restoration and
condonation of delay. For the accident which took place nearly 20
years back, it would be quite impossible to get necessary record.
Allowing the petition and restoring the claim petition would only
give false hope to the claimant whose case eventually is most
unlikely to result in any compensation being awarded.

Looking
to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not
find any reason to interfere. Petition is therefore, dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.133 seconds.