Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Disbursement – Apportionment – Challenge to.
Where compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was disbursed upon a joint application signed by all claimants including the appellant (mother of deceased), and she voluntarily received ₹1,00,000/-, signed the order-sheet and encashed the cheque without protest, she cannot subsequently challenge the apportionment as unfair or contrary to succession law. – Held, appellant acted consciously and with open eyes; allegation of fraud rejected. – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied. – [Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2].
Limitation – Review application – Delay of 6 months 22 days – Cause shown: surgery and illness – Proof.
Review petition against Tribunal’s disbursement order filed with delay of over 6 months. – No medical records produced to substantiate claim of illness/surgery. – Held, delay not satisfactorily explained; Tribunal rightly dismissed review as barred by limitation. – [Paras 3.4, 6.4].
Civil Procedure – Conduct of parties – Effect of voluntary acceptance.
A party who participates in proceedings, signs joint petition, accepts disbursement and encashes cheque cannot later resile or allege fraud. Subsequent attempt to reopen settled disbursement treated as afterthought. – [Paras 5.4, 6.2].
Review – Scope.
Review not maintainable where no error apparent or fraud established. Allegations raised after voluntary acceptance of benefit cannot sustain a review petition. – [Paras 6.2, 6.3].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
2025 INSC 1072 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2023
URMILA CHAND ….Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SONU CHAND AND OTHERS ….Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
The challenge in this appeal is directed against the
judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 22nd
January, 2021. The High Court, refused to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction dismissing the Civil Revision
Petition, in turn confirming order dated 12.01.2018
passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in
Miscellaneous (J) Case No. 6 of 2015.
Page 1 of 13
2. By the said order, the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) had
rejected the review petition against the order dated
21.04.2015 on the ground that it was barred by
limitation. As per the order brought under review, the
Tribunal had disbursed the amount of compensation. A
cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given in favour of the
appellant herein who was the mother, whereas Rs.
6,26,000/- was given to the respondent No. 1, daughter
in law. Further, cheques for Rs. 3,00,000/- each was
directed to be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of
minor respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Claimants No. 2 and 3.
3. In the origin, it was the proceedings of Motor
Accident Claim Case No. 125 of 2009 instituted by
appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were mother,
daughter in law and minor children respectively, of one
Mr. Priyank Chand who died in vehicular accident.
3.1 The accident occurred on 27.02.2009. The said
deceased Mr. Prayank Chand was going in an Indica Car
Page 2 of 13
bearing AS-23F-0934 which belonged to his friend. Truck
bearing No. AMB-0551 dashed with the car which was on
way from Tinsukia to Makum side. Mr. Prayank who was
sitting in the front side suffered serious injury in the
accident and succumbed to death. In the aforesaid
petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 11,82,000/- as per its judgment and award
dated 11.11.2011.
3.2 The High Court by an interim order passed in
Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2012, in which the aforesaid
judgment and award was challenged, by the Insurance
Company, granted interim relief of payment of Rs.
1,00,000/- each to the four claimants. The appeal of the
Insurance Company was ultimately dismissed by the
High Court as per judgment and order dated 09.09.2014,
upholding the award passed by the Tribunal.
3.3 It was upon a joint application that the disbursal
order came to be passed by the Tribunal on 21.04.2015.
As stated above the Tribunal issued cheque of Rs.
Page 3 of 13
1,00,000/- in favour of the appellant herein, a cheque of
Rs. 6,26,000/- with interest to respondent No. 1-
claimants and directed cheques for Rs. 3,00,000/- each
to be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the minor
claimants – respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3.4 It appears that subsequently the appellant
harboured some grievances about the disbursement.
After filing an application under the Right to Information,
she filed a review petition against the said order dated
21.04.2015. The review petition came to be dismissed by
the Tribunal on the ground that it was delayed by 6
months and 22 days. The delay was sought to be
explained by the appellant stating that she had
undergone surgery between the period from 25.05.2015
to 9.12.2015. The Tribunal dismissed the review
application holding that the appellant was unable to
show any document to substantiate the ground of
medical illness or about having undergone the surgery.
Page 4 of 13
3.5 It further appears from the facts on record that
the appellant had certain differences with her Advocates.
She was dissatisfied with the advocate who appeared for
her from the District Legal Services Authority. It is
appellant’s own saying that she had taken legal
assistance from four different counsels be as it may.
3.6 Against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the
review application, the appellant approached the High
Court by filing Civil Revision Application. The same was
also dismissed as stated above, giving rise to the present
appeal before this Court, on various grounds. Learned
counsel for both the parties made submissions and also
filed written arguments. They were also considered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Pranav
Sachdeva submitted that the Tribunal as well as the
High Court erred in not condoning the delay of 6 months.
He submitted that the order of the Tribunal which was
sought to be reviewed by the appellant, was grossly
unfair, therefore was unsustainable. It was further
Page 5 of 13
submitted that the Tribunal paid only Rs. 1,00,000/- to
the appellant widow, whereas total amount awarded to
all the claimants was much higher. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the apportionment was
contrary to the principles of successions law in view that
mother is a class 1 legal heir. It was submitted that
injustice was done to her in disbursement.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant then
highlighted all the chronology of events submit that the
son of the appellant was tactically prevented from
entering the court room. It was submitted that when the
order for disbursement was passed by the Tribunal the
appellant and her son were entering the court room but
the Tribunal pronounced the order.
4.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, submitted
that after the judgment and award came to be passed by
the Claims Tribunal awarding a total sum of Rs.
11,82,000/- by order dated 21.04.2015 for disbursement
Page 6 of 13
amongst the four claimants was passed. It was
emphasized that at the time of disbursement, the parties
including the appellant herein were present in the court
and also interacted with one another. It was submitted
that the appellant did accept Rs. 1,00,000/- and put her
signature on the order sheet, accepting the cheque
amount. It was submitted that filing of the review
petition was an afterthought. The appellant had
conducted herself voluntarily in accepting the amount
and putting her signature, submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant.
4.3 Both the learned counsels, submitted their
respective written submission, which were also confirmed
by the Court.
5. While not entertaining the challenge to the
rejection of the review application and confirming the
order rejecting review application on the ground of delay,
the High Court also considered certain manifested
aspects of merits. It was observed that “it is seen not only
Page 7 of 13
that respondent Nos. 1 and 5 had taken significant stand
that petitioner was present and on acceptance of cheque,
had put her signature on the order sheet of the learned
Tribunal, but the said stand is affirmed by the
petitioner.”
5.1 In Para 8 of the order of the High Court
proceeded to observe,
“…...Therefore, it is apparent that at the
time of receiving the cheque for Rs.1.00
lakh on 21.04.2015, the petitioner did
not raise any · grievance. Assuming that
the petitioner did not understand the
implication of receiving cheque for
Rs.1.00 lakh, but there is no denying
that as on 2L05.2015, the final award
had already been deposited before the
learned Tribunal and that this Court
had already dismissed MAC Appeal no.
79/2012 by judgment dated 02.09.2014.
Therefore, the only conclusion that V can
be reached is that the petitioner having
consciously and voluntarily accepted the
cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh, having
successfully encashed it without any
demur, had made claim for more money
as her share of compensation.
5.1.1 It was further stated in the same
paragraph,
Page 8 of 13
The petitioner has not made any attempt
to explain why on 21.04.2015, when she
was present before the learned Tribunal
with her son, she did not apply for
certified copy of the order-sheet of
21.04.2015 despite putting her signature
on the order-sheet. Therefore, the
petitioner had personal knowledge of the
proceeding of 21.04.2015, as such, the
projection that she had spent time to call
for information under RTI Act appears to
be merely a ploy to create a story to cover
up for the laches and delay in applying
for review.
5.2 In Para 9 following findings were recorded,
“It is seen that in the present revision,
the petitioner had not disclosed that she
had put her signature in the order sheet
while receiving the cheque for Rs.1.00
lakh and it has also not been disclosed
that on the said date, she was
accompanied with her son, namely,
Shishir Chand. In fact, the disbursement
order passed by the learned Tribunal on
21.04.2015 has not been annexed to this
revision petition. However, the
respondent no.1 has annexed the copy of
the joint petition no.223/15 dated
21.04.2015 and a copy of the order dated
21.04.2015 alongwith her affidavit-inopposition. On a perusal of the same,
the petitioner and the respondent no.1
are found to have jointly signed the
verification, and the said petition
Page 9 of 13
contained a prayer to allow the claimants
to withdraw the amount of
compensation, without indicating the
share of the parties. The said petition
specifically contains averment in
paragraph-1 that the insurer had
deposited a sum of Rs.13,07,913 in the
Tribunal.”
5.3 The High Court noted that order dated
21.04.2015 disclosed the payments made and the
amount released to the claimants which include the
minor grandchildren for whom the amount was directed
to be deposited. It was noted that the amount
accumulated as interest on the deposited amount was to
be disbursed in favour of the claimants. A direction was
issued for issuance of cheque in their savings bank
account of the Central Bank of India which was identified
by the Court with Account No. 325513828.
5.4 The High Court pointedly observed about the
conduct of the appellant, in the same paragraph,
“Therefore, when the petitioner had
signed the order sheet dated 21.04.2015
and when she has received a cheque for
Page 10 of 13
Rs. 1.00 lakh, she is deemed to know of
the contents of the said order. Thus,
having accepted the order dated
21.04.2015 by which the award was
apportioned, the plea that the ·petitioner
was not aware of the proceedings or the
contents of order dated 21.04.2015, falls
through as unacceptable. The order
dated 21.04.2015 cannot be said to be
vitiated by fraud.”
6. Having gone through the facts and the order
passed by the High Court, it has to be observed that the
claimants approached the Tribunal for disbursement of
the amount by filing a joint petition No. 223 of 2015
which was filed on 21.04.2015. The order was passed on
the said joint application. The said joint application was
admittedly signed by the appellant herein as well as
daughter in law – respondent No. 1. It contained a prayer
to allow the claimants to withdraw the amount awarded
towards compensation. Nothing more was indicated much
less the share of the respective parties.
6.1 The appellant received the cheque for Rs.
1,00,000/- which she encashed also. She has accepted
Page 11 of 13
the cheque without any protest and demur. It was upon a
joint application and with open eyes. Not only that
appellant voluntarily received the said amount, but she
also put her signature on the order sheet confirming the
receipt of the amount. The High Court has rightly
observed that she knew the contents of the order. It was
only the subsequent change of mind on the delay of the
appeal.
6.2 The appellant could not be permitted to resile
from her own conduct. She cannot be accounted to
approbate and reprobate. The question of occurrence of
fraud against her does not arise in the facts of the case.
She acted with open eyes, overtly and consciously. The
appellant now cannot reopen or dispute the factums of
her own act by showing disagreement to the
disbursement raising all after-thought contentions.
6.3 Looking to the facts and the conduct of the
appellant in jointly applying and thereafter accepting the
compensation and encashing the cheque, no error could
Page 12 of 13
be booked in the order passed by the Tribunal as well as
by the High Court. The operative facts do not permit this
Court to take any different view.
6.4 The High Court while agreeing with the findings
of the Tribunal that there was no satisfactory explanation
of delay in filing and the facts to justify the delay, also
adverted the factual aspect on the merits regarding the
conduct of the appellant as highlighted above. The High
Court consequently rightly dismissed the review
application.
7. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
………………………………….. J.
N.V. ANJARIA
…..…………………………….. J.
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
NEW DELHI;
September 3, 2025
Page 13 of 13
