Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 990 (RAJ)

Pala Singh v. Meera Devi

2003-07-18

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is barred by 82 days. Notice of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were ordered to be issued on 19.9.2001. However, the notices have not been served so far. The learned counsel for the appellant did not even care to file the notices since November, 2002 despite the same received unserved with a report that in Tehsil Annopgarh, Cls-Chak 22-SS is not situated, the address at which the respondent was sought to be served by the appellant. From the record, we find that there is enough reasons to hold that per-suing of this litigation is an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. The respondent has filed the claim petition before the Motor to Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar (camp Suratgarh) alleging that her husband Mangtu Ram died in an accident while he along with Pala Singh was on motor cycle which was being driven by Pala Singh. Pala Singh drove the motor-cycle so negligently and rashly that Mangtu Ram fell down from the motor cycle and died as a result of injuries suffered. She apart from claiming compensation for death of her husband, also claimed interim compensation on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said claim was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 17 10.2000. 3. The claimant Smt. Meera Devi in her claim has given her address as widow of Mangtu Ram by caste Meghwal, resident of 9 SD (Jankidaswala). Tehsil-Suratgarh, Distt. Sriganganagar. 4. However. instead of impleading respondent Meera Devi along with address given by herself in her claim petition, the appellant alleging that Meera Devi has married to another person residing at Chawk 22 SS, Distt. Sriganganagar, furnished the address of Smt. Meera Devi which according to him is a current address. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal in limine against the award of compensation under no fault liability finding that there is no merit in the appeal. Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge this appeal has been flied in which the address of the respondent is one where according to him Smt. Meera Devi has re-married. The notices on the said address have been returned with a report that even the address furnished by the appellant is a non existent address. 6. Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge this appeal has been flied in which the address of the respondent is one where according to him Smt. Meera Devi has re-married. The notices on the said address have been returned with a report that even the address furnished by the appellant is a non existent address. 6. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the appellant is seeking to as deny the liability to pay no fault liability by resorting to highly disputed questions of fact and taking upon himself to furnish a non-existent address without endeavouring to serve the respondent at the address given by herself in the claim petition. This is apart from the question of death of Mangtu Ram in question and the contention raised by the respondent Pala Ram has been that deceased has not died because of his driving but he was hit by another unknown truck clearly goes to show that prima facie Mangtu Ram has died on account of accident and Pala Singh was trying to shift the burden to an unknown truck and the question of remarriage of widow of Mangtu Ram is 1 hardly relevant for the purpose of defeating her claim to damages which arose on account of death of her husband and right to claim vested in her on the date of occurrence of accident. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification now to give further opportunity to the appellant for making s an effort to serve the respondent on the address given by the appellant. It may be noticed that the learned counsel for the appellant still persisted that he has given the correct address though Tehsil might have been changed. As we find no merit in the appeal nor there is any bonafide in per-suing the matter the request for further time is not acceded. 7. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is ejected and as a result the appeal must fail and is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******