Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1020 (JHR)

Chandrawati Devi v. Anand Prakash Honda

2013-09-05

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2013
ORDER 1. The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.05.2013 passed in connection with Claim Case No. 1/2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has reviewed the findings and award passed by him in connection with M.V. Claim Case No. 01/2008 vide dated 20th October, 2012 and ordered to distribute the awarded amount in equal share to all the claimants including the intervenor as well as another married daughter-Soni Sharma of late Indra Lal Sharma, who was not a party to the Claim Case. 2. It is submitted by the appellants that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the judgment and award passed by him in connection with Claim Case No. 1/2008 dated 20th October, 2012 suo motu. Since Soni Sharma was married and she was living separately with her husband and in-laws, it was not necessary to make her party to the Claim Case because she was not dependant on her deceased-father. Likewise Droupdi Devi is admittedly step mother of the deceased and she would be considered as class-II heir according to Hindu Succession Act. When class-I legal heirs are there, it was not needed to implead class-II heir and she shall not be entitled for any share in the property of deceased-Indra Lal Sharma, who was her step son. 3. It is further contended that the petition filed under order 1 Rule 10 was not considered and it was rejected, which is apparent in the impugned order itself and if it was so how the share in the awarded amount was allotted to her. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claimants had not contested the case with clean hands and they had committed forgery by producing some documents on which name of claimant Seema Kumari was written but photograph of Soni Sharma was pasted. At the time of death of deceased both his daughters Soni Sharma and Seema Kumari were married and therefore, status of both the daughters was same. The claimants have also concealed said fact to get the award made in their favour. 5. Learned Counsel further submitted and tried to bring it to my knowledge that the deceased-Indra Lal Sharma was the son of late Mahabir Sharma and late Mahabir Sharma was an employee of C.C.L. who died during his service tenure. The claimants have also concealed said fact to get the award made in their favour. 5. Learned Counsel further submitted and tried to bring it to my knowledge that the deceased-Indra Lal Sharma was the son of late Mahabir Sharma and late Mahabir Sharma was an employee of C.C.L. who died during his service tenure. On the compassionate ground the deceased-Indra Lal Sharma got employment and that too on the basis of ‘No Objection’ submitted by the intervenor Droupdi Devi at the time of getting employment on compassionate ground. The deceased had taken responsibility to maintain the entire family including Droupdi Devi. 6. Having heard both sides, I feel it desirable that the case is required to be remanded back to decide all these issues which have been raised by the parties. Since the court has done exercise to come to the conclusion as to what amount is to be awarded to the legal representative of the deceased-Indra Lal Sharma, who died in a road accident, I do not feel that same exercise is to be done again. Therefore, the issues which have been cropped up due to the impugned order are required to be addressed. Now admitted fact before me is that Droupdi Devi is the step mother and Soni Sharma is the married daughter of late Indra Lal Sharma. Considering above admitted fact, the issues which are required to be dealt with by the Tribunal are as follows:- i. Whether the respondent-Droupdi Devi and Soni Sharma, in whose favour judgment has been reviewed. are legal representative/necessary parties in the said Claim Case No. 01/2008 ? ii. if the respondent no.4-Dropdi Devi and Soni Sharma are considered to be the legal representative of late Indra Lal Sharma in the said Claim Case then what share of the awarded amount is to be allotted to them ? 7. The impugned order dated 29.05.2013 which is admittedly reviewed by the Tribunal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 20th October, 2012 in M.V. Claim Case No. 01/2008 is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the issue referred to above. 8. 7. The impugned order dated 29.05.2013 which is admittedly reviewed by the Tribunal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 20th October, 2012 in M.V. Claim Case No. 01/2008 is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the issue referred to above. 8. It is further made clear that other findings which the Tribunal has given in the judgment and award dated 20.10.2012 for coming to the conclusion to the awarded amount shall remain as it is because the impugned order dated 29.05.2013 has been passed only to the extent of distribution of the awarded amount. 9. The parties are directed to make their appearance before the Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. They shall also file their document and adduce evidence in support of their respective claim on the issues indicated above for which three months time is given to them and after conclusion of the evidence from both sides within the stipulated time, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law within one month thereafter. 10. This appeal stands disposed of.