U.P. Jal Nigam,
Lucknow Vs. Manju Goel & Ors. [2009] INSC 613 (24 March 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1821-1822 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.23035-23036 of 2005) U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow ....
Appellant Versus
Manju Goel & Ors. ....Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Uttranchal
High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
Since the writ appeal
was dismissed for non prosecution, an application for restoration was filed
which was rejected by the impugned order.
3.
It
is to be noted that a Claim Petition was filed before the Motor
Accident Claims
Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal (in short the `MACT') by respondents 1 to 5, claiming
compensation in respect of an accident where one Shri Sudhakar Goel
(hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') lost his life on 19.3.1979. The
claim made was Rs.11 lakhs. The MACT awarded
Rs.9,18,288/- and the
appellant was directed to pay the same. Against the Award an appeal was
preferred before the Allahabad High Court which was numbered as Appeal No.335
of 1984 before the Allahabad High Court.
After reorganization
of State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Uttranchal was formed. The appeal in
question was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court. Being unaware of this
transfer none appeared when the Uttranchal High Court took up the matter. The
appeal was dismissed. Coming to know of the dismissal, an application for
restoration was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The stand of
the appellant is that it has no liability as the liability of Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam in respect of the territory within the Uttranchal State was transferred
to the newly created Uttranchal Water Supply and Development Nigam and
therefore the appellant has no liability to discharge the Award. In any event
several important questions of law were involved. In the background it is
submitted that the restoration application should have been allowed.
4.
There
is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice.
5.
While
issuing notice this Court had indicated that the matter may be remitted for
disposal on merits. However, direction was given to deposit a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- with the concerned MACT without prejudice to the claims involved.
It is stated that the deposit has been made. In view of the factual position
highlighted to justify the non-appearance when the matter was taken up by the
High Court, we are of the view that the matters deserve to be heard on merit.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned order, direct restoration of F.A.F.O. 335
of 1984 (old number) 981 of 2001 (new number) titled U.P. JAL Nivam v. Smt.
Manju Goel and others.
6.
Since
the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the
matter as early as practicable after giving notice to the parties concerned.
7.
The
appeals are disposed of accordingly.
......................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
........................................J.
Back
