Karshanji Olubha Vagha vs Pratap Praghji Solanki

Gita Gopi, J

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.07.2023, the Report of the Deputy Registrar with the communication of the learned Principal District Judge, Kutch at Bhuj is placed on record.

Both the applications, i.e. M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022 came to be rejected on the ground that the original records were sent to the High Court. This Court by an order dated 27.07.2023 had asked for the clarification from the Deputy Registrar, M.A.C.T. Branch Main, Bhuj-Kachchh to show any Rules or Circular to the effect binding the Judicial Officer to reject the payment application on the ground of original record being sent to this High Court. The report of the Deputy Registrar, M.A.C.T. (Main), Bhuj-Kutch suggests that he is not aware of the any such Circular or Rules and he has no personal knowledge. Thus, the orders both dated 21.04.2022 passed in M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022 are not supported by any Circular or Rules of the learned Tribunal.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders both dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022. It is contended that even after passing the order of disbursement, the disbursement of the amount has not been carried out only on the ground that the record and proceedings have been sent to the High Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s Advocate has been regularly attending the Court and since on one of the dates, the petitioner’s Advocate had to undergo a medical operation and therefore, a colleague was looking after the said matter. On 21.04.2022, it came to the knowledge of the learned Advocate that both the M.A.C.M.A.’s were dismissed on the ground that the original records were sent to the High Court. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 19 years and used to work as a labourer. The petitioner has been before the learned Tribunal since the last 27 years.

The facts suggest that a vehicular accident had occurred on 08.12.1991 which involved a State Transport Corporation Bus in which the petitioner had suffered permanent and total functional disability and the claim came to be passed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the said order, an Appeal No.2339 of 2016 was preferred by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation.

On 07.02.2017, this Court admitted the above First Appeal and in the Civil Application, stay was granted, on the condition that the entire awarded amount with interest and costs be deposited with learned Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of the order dated 07.02.2017 and after deposit of the same, 30% of the amount was ordered to be disbursed whereas the balance 70% was ordered to be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt with any nationalized Bank with periodical interest to be paid to the claimants. Vide order dated 16.09.2013 in M.A.C.P. No.543 of 1996 passed by the learned M.A.C.T, Kachchh at Bhuj, the TDS amount was ordered to be deposited with the Tribunal by a separate cheque. On 03.04.2017, the petitioner had moved an application for payment of the amount of compensation. The interest amount did not exceed Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for payment of the amount of TDS, both were numbered as M.A.C.M.A. No.543 of 1996. Thereafter, it was informed to the petitioner that due to an oversight, the papers of M.A.C.M.A. No.212 of 2017 were sent alongwith the papers of M.A.C.M.A. No.543 of 1996. The petitioner thereafter made a representation before the learned Tribunal, wherein it was advised that another M.A.C.M.A clarifying the position be submitted. Hence, as per advise, separate applications – one for payment of compensation amount and another for payment of TDS amount were filed. The application for payment of the compensation amount was registered as M.A.C.M.A. No.39 of 2022 and the application for payment of amount of TDS was registered as M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022. Both the M.A.C.M.A.’s were dismissed on the ground that the original records were sent to the High Court. As submitted, it also appears a copy of the award under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and copy of the order of this Court dated 07.02.2017 were submitted alongwith M.A.C.M.A. No.39 of 2022 but till date the disbursement order has not been followed.

The order of this Court dated 07.02.2017 in First Appeal No.2339 of 2016 alongwith the connected Civil Application reads as under :-

“Order in the First Appeal :-

Admit.

Order in the Civil Application :-

Upon considering the averments made in the application and the submissions made by learned Advocate for the applicant-appellant, execution, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and award dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kachchh at Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No.543 of 1996 is stayed till the final disposal of the present appeal on condition that the applicant-appellant deposits the entire awarded amount with interest and costs with the learned Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of this order and upon deposit of such amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse 30% of the amount in terms of the award and invest the remaining 70% amount in FDR with any nationalized bank with periodical interest to the claimants. The aforesaid FDR shall be renewed from time to time and shall not be encashed till final disposal of the appeal.

Present Civil Application is disposed of accordingly with the above direction.”

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Both the orders dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022 are quashed and set aside.

Let the compensation amount be paid to the petitioner as stipulated in compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.02.2017. The amount of TDS deposited by G.S.R.T.C. be paid to the petitioner, on verification of identity.

Direct Service is permitted.