MANU PRATAP SINGH Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICES were issued as per the office report dated 1st March, 2004. Notices meant for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by RPAD has not returned back, neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has also returned back. The services of notice of respondents 2 and 3 are deemed sufficient in terms of the High Court Rules. Respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. is represented through Shri Nipendra Mishra, Advocate. Newly added respondent No. 4 is represented through Shri Atul Dayal. No counter-affidavit or objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in whose favour an ex parte order had been passed. Counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the other respondents. However, vide order dated 27th January, 2005 Mr. Nipendra Mishra learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. was directed to file an affidavit of the Branch Manager, Civil Lines Branch, Indira Bhawan, Allahabad within ten days categorically stating therein on the basis of record available in the office as to whether the vehicle No. U.P. 70-E-8802 was involved in the accident, and whether it was insured with it or not. However, no such counter-affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company in compliance of the said order. Mr. Nipendra Mishra learned Counsel for the repondents is also not present personally in the Court to explain as to why the compliance of the order dated 27th January, 2005 has not been made.

(2.) IT has been submitted by Mr. Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 that another claim petition arising out of the same accident in which the same vehicle was involved it has been found that the said vehicle No. U.P.-70-E-8802 was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Limited.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and looked into the record of the case and find that the mother of the deceased respondent No. 4 who is one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal though she should have been impleaded as a party by the claimant respondent No. 2. It is alleged that the widow of the deceased has remarried within a short time after the death of her husband in the accident during the pendency of the claim petition and prior to the passing of the ex parte award and had thus lost all her rights, title and interest in the claim.