Shad Anwar vs United India Insurance Co. and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Suit No. 828/08/04 titled "Shamsuddin v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.", insofar as the said order directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Delhi Lawyers Welfare Fund as costs and also recommended action against the Petitioner by the Delhi Bar Association and Bar Council of Delhi.

It emerges from the record that the Petitioner, who is an Advocate and was representing the claimant (the Respondent No. 4 herein) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid MACT Suit No. 828/08/04, had moved an application before the Tribunal for recalling of order dated October 10, 2005. The said application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 29.01.2009, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- by the Petitioner himself and by the same order it was also directed that a copy of the said order dated January 29, 2009 be sent to the Delhi Bar Association as well as the Bar Council of Delhi for appropriate action against the Petitioner in failing to conduct the case of the Appellant inspite of having accepted the brief.

Notice of the petition was issued to the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 herein, who are duly served but are unrepresented. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought, service on the Respondent No. 2 (the driver of the alleged offending vehicle) was dispensed with by order dated September 30, 2010.

The Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the claim petition filed by the claimant has since culminated in an award in favour of the claimant and the claimant has also received the awarded amount. He further submits that the claimant has no grievance whatsoever against the Petitioner with regard to the conduct of the case by him. He also submits that the costs of Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited by him, as ordered by the learned Tribunal, for the default in deposit of process fee for service of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 on a few occasions. The proof of deposit of the same has been placed on record.

The Petitioner also points out that the notice was issued by the learned Tribunal to the Respondents No. 1 to 3 for the first time by order dated 06.10.2004 on process fee for service of all the Respondents being deposited by him. The said notice was returnable on 6th January, 2005, and on the said date the report on the service of notice was that the Respondents No. 2 and 3 were unserved. On 6th January, 2005, fresh notice for 7th April, 2005 was issued to the Respondents No. 2 and 3 and again on the said date, i.e., on 7th April, 2005 for 18th July, 2005 and thereafter for 10th October, 2005, on which dates he (the Petitioner) defaulted in depositing the process fee. By order dated 10th October, 2005, the learned trial court dismissed the petition qua Respondents No. 2 and 3, but, as the matter had gone for conciliation at the request of both the parties, the application to set aside the said order dated 10.10.2005 was filed later on when it became apparent that this matter could not be settled in conciliation.

The aforesaid facts are not refuted by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company.

Having heard the parties and gone through the records of the learned Tribunal, there is no manner of doubt that there was some default on the part of the Petitioner in not depositing process fee for service of the Respondents No. 2 and 3, resulting in dismissal of the petition qua the said Respondents on 10th October, 2005. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that the Petitioner has been penalized for the same and the costs imposed upon him have since been deposited by him. It also cannot be lost sight of that the claim petition has since culminated in an award in favour of the claimant and the claimant has also received the award amount and has no grievance against the Petitioner of any nature whatsoever.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order insofar as it directs appropriate action to be taken by the Delhi Bar Association as well as the Delhi Bar Council against the Petitioner is set aside.

C.R.P. 44/2009 and CM No. 4180/2009 stand disposed of accordingly.