Back
1984 Supreme(MP) 281
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J. S. VERMA
UMRAJI - Appellant
Versus
R.C.BAJPAI - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 2019 Of 1983
Decided On : 06/22/1984
H.S.DUBEY, K.L.ISSRANI
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- proceeding illegal and causing a fraud to be played as an illiterate and indigent woman -- her application may be treated as an application for revision and legal aid should be given to her. [Para 6
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 3, R. 1 -- power of an advocate -- termination of -- appointing another advocate by the client -- supercedes and withdrawn the power of the previous advocate to act on behalf of the client -- such power cannot be revived unless another Vakaltanama is filed engaging such advocate. [Para 13
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- dismissal of revision petition application for withdrawal filed by an illiterate and indigent woman for buying peace with an advocate engaged by her some times -- revisional Court may not dismiss the petition and may pass an order as it thinks fit. [Para 15
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- restitution of an amount paid to an advocate against any direction of the claimant on the basis of an illegal order in claims case -- such sum may be ordered to be refunded from the advocate.
An illiterate and indigent widow, in a claims case engaged another counsel and made a written prayer that the compensation payable because of the death of her husband may be paid to her and nobody else in the form of a bank draft. Inspite this application, the Claims Tribunal paid the amount to her previous counsel, whose authority to act on her behalf was superceded and withdrawn, the order making such payment was illegal.
While setting aside this order the High Court in revision ordered restitution of the amount so paid from the advocate to whom it was passed and ordered the amount due to be recovered from the advocate. [Para 16
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110-A -- claim of a widow for the death of her husband by a fatal motor accident allowed by the Claims Tribunal -- duty of the Claims Tribunal is to see that the amount is received by her, and none else.
The High Court expressed deep anguish and serious concern at the manner in which an illiterate and indigent widow has suffered aggravation of her misfortune resulting from the premature death of her husband in a motor accident on account of the conduct of the Advocate, whom she engaged as her counsel.
The Tribunal has a duty to ensure payment of compensation directly to the right claimants who have already suffered a misfortune. Failure to discharge this duty vigilantly, either due to negligence or design, must be strongly deprecated. It is to be hoped that the Tribunals will be conscious of this sacred duty at least hereafter to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future. [Para 17
( 1 ) THIS civil revision arises out of unusual circumstances. The petitioner Smt. Umraji is an illiterate and indigent widow, who lost her husband Sangram in a fatal motor accident. Smt. Umraji then filed a claim on behalf of herself and her five minor children for recovery of compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. It was claim case No. 74 of 1979, decided on 23-8-1982, by Shri D. P. Shukla, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. According to the award, Rs. 29,700/- together with interest and costs, amounting in all to Rs. 36,789. 85 was to be paid to the claimants. Out of the principal amount a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded as compensation to the minor children, while the remaining amount was to be paid to Smt. Unraji, widow of the deceased.
( 2 ) SHRI R. C. Bajpai, Advocate, was engaged by Smt. Umraji as her counsel in the above claim case. On 6-9-1982, an application was made by the petitioner Smt. Umraji to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for issue of recovery certificate under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri R. C. Bajpai appeared as counsel for the petitioner. On 24-11-1982, the petitioner Smt. Umraji engaged another counsel, Shri G. S. Ayachi, Advocate, and filed an application in the Tribunal through Shri Ayachi, stating that the insurer had remitted the amount to the Tribunal by a Bank draft and the amount be paid directly to the petitioner herself by preparing a voucher in her own name. It was also stated therein that this payment to the petitioner be made, if possible, in the shape of a Bank draft, instead of cash, for reasons of security. The Tribunal, in its order sheet dated 24-11-1982. mentioned this fact and instead of making an order straightway in accordance therewith, directed the case to be listed on 27-11-1982. The case was adjourned on 27-11-1982 to 29-11-1982 and then 30-11-1982. The order dated 30-11-1982 contains the Tribunal's direction for preparation of the voucher in the name of Shri Bajpai, stating therein that Smt. Umraji had agreed to preparation of the voucher in the name of Shri R. C. Bajpai. It is significant that the petitioner's earlier application filed through Shri Ayachi for payment only to her by preparation of the voucher in her name was not withdrawn and there was no difficulty in making the payment directly to her instead of through an intermediary.
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the entire amount of Rs. 36,798. 85 was then paid to Shri R. C. Bajpai, who deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the Bank in the names of the minor children of the deceased. It is at this stage that the controversy between Smt. Umraji and Shri R. C. Bajpai deepened. According to the initial version of Shri R. C. Bajpai, Advocate, the entire remaining amount of Rs. 21,798. 85 was paid by him in cash to the petitioner Smt. Umraji on 21-12-1982, after he had deposited the amount of Rs. 15,000/- in the names of the minors in the Bank and in this manner the total amount of Rs. 36,798. 85 received by him on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Umraji, had been paid to her, retaining nothing with himself. Smt. Umraji however, contended that in addition to the deposit of Rs. 15,000/-in the Bank in the names of the minor children, Shri R. C. Bajpai, Advocate, had paid her nothing and, therefore, she had been deprived of the remaining amount of Rs. 21,798. 85 by Shri R. C. Bajpai, who had withdrawn and then retained the amount without any authority.
( 4 ) ON 24-12-1982, the petitioner Smt. Umraji gave a written notice to Shri R. C. Bajpai, Advocate, demanding payment of the balance amount of Rs. 21,798. 85 to her, Shri R. C. Bajpai sent a reply dated 3-1-1983 to the petitioner Smt. Umraji denying the allegation and expressing surprise at the petitioner's notice, mentioning therein that he had paid the entire amount of Rs. 21,798. 85 in cash to her on the same day, i. e. 21-12-1982 and had also obtained a receipt to this effect. T
