CHANDA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTOR Accident Claim Petition No. 118 of 1989 was adjudicated under an Award of the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal dated 24.12.2004. The petitioner before this Court claims to be the owner of the bus, involved in the accident, he made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for the Award being set aside on the ground that it was ex parte. MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal under an order dated 25.11.2008 allowed the application with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount awarded along with cost of Rs. 500/-. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the directions so issued by the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal and made an application that instead of 50% amount being deposited in cash, he may be permitted to furnish security for the like amount. The application of the petitioner has been rejected under the order dated 28.03.2009. The order of the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal dated 25.11.2008 and dated 28.03.2009 have been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the earlier award was ex parte, the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal should have accepted security in lieu of cash deposit of the 50% amount. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. From the records of the present writ petition it is apparent that the MOTOR Accident Claim Petition was filed as early as in the year 1989, the same could be adjudicated only after 15 years to be pr cise on 24.12.2004. The application for recall could be considered and decided by the Tribunal after three years and even thereafter the petitioner not chosen to deposit 50% of the amount awarded and prayed for security being accepted in lieu of cash. The MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal has rightly rejected the application giving one more opportunity to the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount within two months. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sees little or no justification to interfere with such an order. The petitioner may comply with the directions so issued. Since the time granted by the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal has run out, counsel for the petitioner seeks some reasonable time to deposit the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted four weeks' further time to deposit 50% of the amount before the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal. If the amount is so deposited, the petitioner will be at liberty to make an application before the Tribunal for early disposal of the petition and the Tribunal may proceed to decide the MOTOR Accident Claim Petition preferably within eight weeks from the date the application is so filed. It goes without saying that if the 50% of the amount is deposited, as indicated above, the petitioner may make an application along with a certified copy of this order, for release of the Tractor which shall be considered within eight weeks by the MOTOR Accident Claim Tribunal. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.