Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case petitioner is entitled to family pension.

Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Y.V. Shah, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Siraj R. Gori learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was working as RPF constable and by order dated 2nd July 1993 he was removed from service for remaining absent from duty. The removal order was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 18.01. 1994.

3. The petitioner has filed a representation before the Respondent No. 2 claiming family pension. The removal order was not challenged by the husband of the petitioner. He has also died, Provident Fund account has also been settled. Therefore, at this stage, the entire claim cannot be reopened on the basis of representation made by the petitioner.

4. This Special Civil Application is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

2013 (1) GCD 790 (Guj)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Upadhyaya

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Versus

Jayati Uday Bhatt D/o. Late Chetnaben Uday Bhatt & Ors.

First Appeal No. 2737 of 20121—Decided on 10/10/2012

Subject :

Motor accident — Claim petition — Application under Section 140 of the MV Act for compensation under head no fault liability — Award for interim compensation without deciding the objection of insurance about defective driving licence — Sustainability.

Point in Issue :

Whether award of interim compensation under head no fault liability without adverting to insurance objection about defective driver licence sustainable.

Head Note :

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) — Sections 140 & 149(2) — Motor accident — Claim petition for compensation — Application under Section 140 of the Act for interim compensation under head of no fault liability — Award for interim compensation without deciding or adverting to the contention of Insurance regarding defective driving licence of driver — Held, instead of remanding the matter with direction to Tribunal to decide objection petition of Insurance, Court considering the matter old and to avoid delay likely to be caused otherwise directed Tribunal to try and decide the main claim petition itself at earliest within stipulated time.

{tuxh ðtn™ yrÄr™Þ{, 1988 (fuLÿ™tu Ë™ 1988™tu 59{tu) - f÷{tu 140 y™u 149(2) - {tuxh yfM{t‚ - ð¤‚h {txu™e Œtðt yhS - yrÄr™Þ{™e f÷{ 140 nuX¤ ð[„t¤t™e ð¤‚h {txu™e sðtƒŒthe ™tfËqh rðrn™‚t™t fthýu fhu÷e yhS - zÙtÞðh ™t ¾t{eÞwõ‚ ðtn™ [t÷™ ÷tÞLË™u æÞt™u ÷eÄt ð„h ð[„t¤t™t ð¤‚h™tu fhðt{t ytðu÷ nwf{ - XhtðtÞw, ƒe{t yhS™e ðtkÄtyhS …híðu r™ýoÞ fhðt xÙeçÞw™÷u r™Œuoþtu ytÃÞtð„h, ftuxuo sq™e ƒtƒ‚ ntuðt™e ðt‚ æÞt™u ÷E y™u yLÞÚtt Út‚tu rð÷kƒ xt¤ðt {txu xÙeçÞw™÷™u {wÏÞ Œtðt yhS [÷tðe™u r™ŠŒü Ë{Þ„t¤t{t ðnu÷e r™Šý‚ fhðt r™Œuoþtu ytÃÞt.

Held :

The original claim petition is of the year 2009. This Court is of the opinion that by partly allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Tribunal with direction to decide afresh application Exh:6 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 herein–original claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would cause delay in the otherwise old matter. Instead of that as agreed, it would be in the interest of justice for both the sides, if the concerned claim Tribunal is directed to try and decide the main claim petition itself at the earliest and within stipulated time, which this Court will fix and at that time all the rights and contentions raised by both the sides shall be kept open. [Para 7]

Law Laid Down :

Even at the stage of appeal Insurance Company is permitted to take defence which are available under Section 149(2) of the Act

Case Law Analysis :

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sidikbhai Ukabhai Solanki & Anr. 2012 (2) GLH 465 [Para 4];; Yallawa & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) ACC 269 (SC) [Para 6].—Relied on

Appearance :

Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, for the Appellant No. 1.

Rule Served, for the Defendants No. 1, 3, 6.

Mr. Mehul S. Shah, for the Defendants No. 1, 3.

Mr. Suresh M. Shah, for the Defendants No. 1, 3.

Rule Not Recd