Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


DEEPAK KANT v GANPAT & ORS - CW Case No. 5378 of 2002 [2007] RD-RJ 1984 (16 April 2007)

CW 5378/02




Deepak Kant Versus Ganpat & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER :: 16/04/2007


Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, for petitioner

Mr. Vigyan Shah for Mr. Ashok Mehta, for respondents


Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing the order dated 11th July, 2002 whereby his application filed for restoration of claim application was dismissed by learned Tribunal.

Facts, which almost not in dispute, are that the alleged accident took place on 20th July, 1996 against which claim application was filed by him in November, 1996. The written statement was filed by the Insurance Company on 5th November, 1998 and thereafter, issues were framed, but anyhow opportunity was afforded to the claimant, but for good reason, he has not turned up and his application was dismissed in default on 4th May, 8th 2000. Restoration application was filed on

May, 2000, but it appears that date fixed was 13th

September, 2001, but anyhow counsel for claimant was under impression that the date fixed was 21st

September, 2001 and on 21st September, 2001, when it came to knowledge that his restoration

CW 5378/02 application has been dismissed on the same day.

Application was filed for recalling the order which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal under the order impugned.

It is true that sufficient time was available for the claimant to produce evidence in support of their claim application but the same was dismissed in May, 2000. It appears that so far as restoration application is concerned, the same was filed within four days and the explanation which the claimant has furnished about the date 21st of September, 2001, it appears to be reasonable and which has not been properly appreciated by learned Tribunal. Moreso, when application was filed by him on 21st September, 2001 itself shows its bonafide. Even otherwise, claim application ordinarily has to be decided on merits, which is the basic object of the Act also.

Counsel for respondents has raised objection that if compensation is finally computed by the learned Tribunal, the Company has to be burdened over payment of interest for the said period for which they cannot be saddled with any cost.

Submission made appears to be reasonable certainly when claim application was dismissed and restoration was also dismissed by the learned

Tribunal atleast the claimant cannot be made entitled for interest for the intervening period.

CW 5378/02

Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and order of the Tribunal dated 11th July, 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 14th May, 2007. However, it is made clear that if

Tribunal comes to a conclusion after examining on merits that claimant is entitled for compensation, it is further made clear that he will not be entitled for interest from the date of dismissal i.e 04/05/2000 till passing of the present order. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.