Both these writ petitions bearing No.5820(M/S) of 2008 and No. 401(M/S) of 2010 involve common questions of law and facts and, as such, the learned counsels appearing for both the writ petitioners request that both the petitions be taken up together.
I accede to their request.
Heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
Facts of the case are very alarming, casting aspersion against the administration of justice, which is eroding public confidence. The apathy of poor claimants is converting into disillusionment with the whole system, which is suicidal to the constitutional mechanism.
Brief facts of the case are that one Yogendra Tiwari, aged 34 years was driving his motorcycle, bearing Registration NO.UP 72A-3972, which was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Mahindra Tractor, bearing Registration No. UP 33A-5124 coming from the other side. The motorcyclist Yogendra Tiwari was crushed to death. One C.P. No. 446 Ghanshyam Pandey, who was deputed to duty over there, lodged the F.I.R. The deceased left behind widow, namely, Smt. Sumitra Devi aged about 31 years, three minor sons and one Yogesh Kumar, who filed claim petition before respondent no.1 against the owners, driver and insurers of the tractor, which was registered as M.A.C.P. No. 148 of 2000.
Learned Tribunal found that person, driving the tractor at the time of accident, was not having valid driving licence and, as such, the award was made for Rs.3,37,000/- against the owners. The claimants moved the tribunal and a recovery certificate was issued to the District Magistrate, Raebareli, who returned the same with endorsements that the name of the father and husband of the two owners has wrongly been mentioned, the correct name of father of owner no.1 is Ram Kishun Yadav and opposite party no.2 is Smt. Dhanpati, wife of Bhagwandin. Due to wrong entry of names of parents and husband, recovery certificate cannot be executed. The poor claimants moved correction application and another applications, which were rejected as not pressed and ultimately, the owners have filed these two petitions before this Court.
With heavy heart, I mention that the petitioners before me have received the notices, filed written statement and contested the case right from the very beginning till the end. As there was any discrepancy of the name of the father and husband, the same could have been corrected by the tribunal itself, firstly by directing the claimants to move an amendment application and, thereafter, the award could have been corrected. Another disgusting fact is that the petitioners got stay order by this Court and the poor claimants are running from post to pillar to get their dues because the only bread-earner of the family Yogendra Tiwari had died. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute this fact before this Court that his clients (petitioners) did not respond to the notice issued by the tribunal, did not file written statement and did not contest the case. They did so. A clerical error has been converted into denial of the fruits of award.
The established law is that technicalities do not come in the way of delivery of justice. Substantial justice must be done and mere technicalities must be overlooked, rectified promptly. Paper justice is not meant; the courts, are bound to get their orders executed otherwise the futile exercise of filing case, contesting and writing judgments is not warranted. The justice delivery system must be result-oriented so as to enjoy the confidence of litigant public. Justice cannot be allowed to be denied, delayed or derailed on mere technicalities. The public is in no mood to wait endlessly for getting their grievances redressed. This sentence has been mentioned purposefully so as to remind that it is a duty of every court of law right from the lowest strata upto the highest strata that there should be no laxity, which may cast any aspersion against the judicial system. The institution of justice does not enjoy the public faith because of their authority, but it lies in redressing genuine grievances of the public at large quickly.
With these observations, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed with special costs. They are accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- each, which shall paid by the petitioner to the claimants before the Tribunal within 30 days from today. The tribunal shall immediately pay the amount, so deposited to the claimants and the share of the claimant nos. 2 to 4 shall be paid to their mother, so that the family may be saved from begging. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, a fresh recovery certificate shall be issued by the tribunal regarding this amount of Rs.20,000/-.
The Tribunal is further directed to permit the claimants to move application for amendment so as to correct the name of father and husband of the opposite parties concerned. The application so moved, should be allowed the same day and award should also be corrected, accordingly forthwith (the same day) and, therefore, a recovery certificate should be issued for the said amount.
It shall not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners have filed F.A.F.O. No. 1203/2008, after lapse of time and, as such, the petitioner has exhausted all the modes to make the award meaningless and have applied all diabolic means to derail justice and the learned Tribunal has been caught in the trap because it was sleeping, torpid, lethargic or hibernating and, thereby, dormant.
Order Date :- 25.4.2012 GK Sinha.