AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—List revised.
No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 2007 for grant of compensation on the allegation that he had sustained injuries on 09.09.2006 as a result of involvement of vehicle No. UP-35/T-5980 (Tempo). It appears that the said claim petition was amicably settled in full and final settlement in Lok Adalat on 15.07.2008, in terms of which, Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner to the claimant/respondent No. 2. The settlement of Lok Adalat is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, this settlement was accepted by the Court on 30.07.2008, by which the settlement/compromise recorded earlier, became a part of the award dated 30.07.2008. Subsequently, it appears the petitioner-Insurance company came to know of the fact that the claim petition had been filed on absolutely fictitious/fabricated ground, in as much as, the vehicle i.e. tempo in question was never involved in the commission of the alleged accident, in which the petitioner is alleged to have sustain injury, therefore, the petitioner-Insurance company filed an application for recall/review dated 06.10.2008 for cancellation of compromise dated 15.07.2008 and the consequential decree dated 30.07.2008 be also set aside on the ground that as final report in case No. 697 of 2007 under Sections 279/338 I.P.C. has been submitted by the Investigating Officer concern on the ground that no such alleged accident is said to have taken place involving the commission of the alleged tempo, therefore, the element of fraud is writ large on the face of record.
The learned trial Court has rejected the said recall application on the ground that only on the basis of mere submission of a final report, fraud cannot be inferred.
Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the said order before this Court. Although, Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not, to the satisfaction of the court, point out any illegality in the impugned order but however he submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid final report has been accepted by the Magistrate vide his order dated 03.11.2010, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the affidavit.
Be that as it may, the fact remain that in view of the aforesaid subsequent development, i.e. acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate concern on 03.11.2010 in Misc. Case No. 328 of 2007, whereby not only the final report has been accepted, but the protest petition of respondent No. 2 has also been dismissed, the matter requires reconsideration for passing appropriate orders by the Court concerned.
Accordingly, without setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition, the matter stands remitted before respondent No. 1, who shall pass fresh orders With regard to consequence and impact of acceptance of final report by the learned Magistrate on the settlement/award in question in accordance with law after hearing the party concern.
With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed off.