SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Smt. Zohra Fatima @ Johra Fatima & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Lko - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4850 of 2022
Decided On : 02-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman.

The legal principle that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear intention to the contrary.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 165 - [Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988] - The court allowed the claim petition and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that the newly constituted Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over cases already decided prior to its creation. The court referred to the legal principle that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear intention to the contrary.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought direction for withdrawal of claimed amount deposited with the court in terms of an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They argued that the court erred in rejecting the application for withdrawal due to confusion regarding the jurisdiction of the newly constituted Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the jurisdiction of the court that decided the initial claim petition was not ousted by the creation of the new Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court granted the petitioners the liberty to file a fresh application for withdrawal of the compensation awarded to them.

Issues: Confusion regarding the jurisdiction of the newly constituted Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the rejection of the application for withdrawal of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the newly constituted Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over cases already decided prior to its creation. The court referred to the legal principle that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear intention to the contrary.

Final Decision: The petitioners were granted the liberty to file a fresh application for withdrawal of the compensation awarded to them, and the court directed the payment of compensation to be released in their favor within a specified time period.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for respondent No.2/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow through its Registrar.

2. Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to the Additional District & Sessions Judge to entertain a fresh application for withdrawal of claimed amount which has been deposited with it in terms of award made by erstwhile Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Second prayer is for a direction to disburse the claimed amount within a specified time period already deposited by the insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, late Rashid Kamal who was husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2,3 and 4 passed away due to accidental death in the year 1999 leading to filing of claim petition No. 317 of 2000, which was allowed by means of judgment and award dated 31st May, 2006 awarding an amount of Rs.1,60,720/- along with 7 & 1/2 % interest per annum on the amount of compensation. It is submitted that against aforesaid award, the petitioners as well as the insurance company filed separate appeals which were registered as F.A.F.O. No. 750 of 2006 and F.A.F.O. No. 826 of 2006, which were heard and decided by common judgment dated 4th December, 2017 whereby appeal for enhancement of compensation by the petitioners was allowed while the appeal filed by insurance company was dismissed. Compensation as claimed by the petitioners was enhanced to Rs.9,10,000/- along with applicable rate of interest and the insurance company was directed to deposit entire amount within a period of two months from the date of judgment. It was also directed that in case the amount was not deposited within aforesaid time period, the learned tribunal was to proceed in accordance with law. Deposit of statutory amount was also directed to be remitted to learned Tribunal for payment of compensation to petitioners/claimants.

4. It is submitted that in pursuance to the aforesaid judgment, an application for enforcement of award was filed and registered as Misc. Case No. 1232 of 2018 in which the insurance company on 4th February, 2019 informed in writing that cheque No. 528242 dated 21st March, 2018 for a sum of Rs.16,41,782/- had been deposited on 28th April, 2018 and as such compliance of award had been made. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance to the aforesaid information, the petitioners filed an application in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow for withdrawal of the award amount in Claim Petition No. 317 of 2000 but the same was returned with a direction dated 8th August, 2022 requiring the petitioners to file application before appropriate forum.

5. It is submitted that subsequent to the award of Tribunal and judgment rendered by this Court, a notification was issued by the State Government on 9th January, 2019 through gazette in terms of Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 constituting Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for 75 places within the State of U.P. for disposal of motor accident claim cases. The Registrar General of Allahabad High Court also vide letter dated 6th November, 2020 has issued directions to the District Judges of the aforesaid districts to transfer motor accident claims cases pending in the district to the newly created Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the respective judgeship in pursuance of the government notification dated 9th January, 2019.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to the aforesaid notification and letter, a confusion has prevailed upon the court concerned that amount of award is required to be released by the newly constituted Motor Accident Claims Tribunal instead of court of Additional District Judge which had passed its award in Claim Petition No. 317 of 2000. It is submitted that once initial claim petition has been decided and award has been passed prior to creation of new motor accident claims

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top