U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow vs Manju Goel & Ors

Manju Goel & Ors. ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

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

2 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.

3

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. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, March 24, 2009

4