SHABNAM BANO Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CAIMS TRIBUNAL AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Acci- application under section 140 of the Motor dents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, respondent No. 1. The application was allowed by the above Tribunal vide order dated 8.1.1999. The respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as interim award to the petitioner and the cheque of the above amount was to be submitted before the Tribunal in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter on an application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal for handing over the cheque to the petitioner, the Tribunal asked the petitioner to file a succession certificate. The directions of the Tribunal asking the petitioner to file a succession certificate vide order dated 27.3.1999 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

(3.) In the claim petition itself the petitioner had specifically averred that she is the only successor to the deceased Zarina and on the same premises the interim award has also been passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. There being no objection from any of the respondents in regard to the petitioner being bonafide successor of the deceased, in my opinion, the Tribunal should not have insisted on submitting a succession certificate by the petitioner when the petitioner had already submitted the certificate issued from the Cantonment Board, Nasirabad, along with an affidavit in this regard. At the most, the Tribunal could have asked for an undertaking from the petitioner that in case any other person put his/her claim in this regard, she shall return the amount as directed by the Tribunal.