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
