BABY RINKI Vs. SURENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal depicts harrowing story of the three minor children and the widow, who had first suffered due to the sudden demise of the sole bread earner in the family due to an accident and then at the hands of two lawyers, who in their greed of sharing the booty of compensation had filed two separate claim petitions arising out of the same accident. This is not a new story and is a well known fact that handful of lawyers dealing in MACT cases immediately land at the door steps of victims of accident as early as even the last rites of such victims have yet not been completed. Before the family members overcome their emotions and sentiments such lawyers would visit their places to get the MACT petitions signed and in such traumatic conditions, family members of the victims are lured for the grant of hefty amount of compensation. On the one hand, the family members are struggling to over come their trauma, grief and agony and on the other hand, the struggle amongst the lawyers are going on as to who would succeed in getting the loaf of bread i. e. the brief. Facts of the present case depicts the said sordid conduct of two lawyers, who succeeded in getting two separate claim petitions signed from the widow of the deceased and a mother of three minor children. One claim petition was filed through Shri Yogesh K. Verma, advocate and the other claim petition was filed through Shri V. K. Sharma, advocate. The fact of the filing of two said petitions was brought to the notice of the concerned Presiding Judge of the MACT. The Presiding Judge acting in a most injudicious manner inflicted the last blow on the helpless victims by dismissing the second MACT petition. The fact of withdrawal of the first petition vide orders dated 25. 5. 2000 was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, but the fact of concealment on the part of the petitioners over powered the rational and conscience of the Presiding Judge. The Tribunal in such eagerness failed to realize that no motive could be attributed to the claimants in filing two separate claim petitions. The victim of the accident or their family members are generally ignorant about the legal steps to be taken for claiming the compensation after such tragic accidents.

(2.) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the MACT tribunal is set aside. " The matter is remanded back to the tribunal for denovo trial of the case and since considerable amount of time has been lost in the process, therefore, every endeavour shall be made by the tribunal to decide the claim petition of the appellant as expeditiously as possible. Parties shall appear before the tribunal on 3. 3. 2008.

(3.) BEFORE parting with the present case, I strongly deprecate the practice of some unscrupulous lawyers who against all legal ethics, approach the family members of the victims of the accident or the victim themselves so as to solicit filing the claim petitions on their behalf. " The unwary citizens sometimes get entrapped, when alluring offers of grant of hefty compensation amount is assured by such advocates that too at that point of time when the family members of the victims are still under the state of shock and are not able to form a rational opinion of taking a particular decision. " To curb this menace prevailing amongst handful of lawyers who ultimately become instrumental to defame the entire legal profession, the Bar Council of Delhi, a statutory body of lawyers, is requested to issue proper guidelines and statutory warnings in the case of any lawyer found indulging into such illegal and unethical act of soliciting a compensation case. " The Delhi Legal Advisory Board is also directed to carry out some publication specially in Hindi newspapers educating the public not to fall prey at the hands of such unscrupulous lawyers. With these directions, the present appeal is disposed of.