DHRUV CHARAN PARIDA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioners in view of the insistence of the MACT, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on endorsement from the counsel for the petitioners for releasing the cheques to the petitioners of the compensation amount to the effect that the counsel must put an endorsement that the petitioners are personally known to the counsel.

(2.) It is pointed out that the petitioners are entitled to compensation as they were the petitioners in the main petition. The petitioners are residents of Orissa and arrived at Delhi to take the compensation. The counsel for the petitioners was willing to put an endorsement identifying the petitioners as also the factum of their having signed the application and receipts for release of cheques. The petitioners had also filed photocopies of the voter cards and had the originals in their possession. The cheques were however not released since the counsel for the petitioners did not put down the endorsement 'that the petitioners are personally known to him'. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the facts that the MACT is insisting on release of only two cheques against which the petitioners should get the FDRs and then only would the MACT release the remaining two cheques. The problem is stated to be arising on account of the fact that the petitioners are having their accounts in Indupur, District: Kendrapara, Orissa.

(3.) On perusal of the petition, I am of the considered view that the object should only be to ensure that the money is being released to an identified person. It is trite to say that the client may not be personally known to a counsel in the sense of having any personal relationship. In my considered view the MACT cannot insist on an endorsement from the counsel/advocate that the petitioners are personally known to him. The petitioners are stated to be present in person along with a photocopies of their voter cards along with the originals thereof and an advocate willing to make an endorsement that he was identifying the petitioners who were signing in his presence. This was more than sufficient for purposes of identification of the petitioners. The MACT must be keep in mind that it is the litigant who is the consumer of justice and procedure must be devised to facilitate him and not to cause obstructions. Beyond identification of the petitioners and the amounting going to the petitioners, nothing more is required.