The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, has dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging the disbursement of motor accident compensation, holding that a party cannot be permitted to “approbate and reprobate” after voluntarily accepting their share of the award. The Court upheld the orders of the Gauhati High Court and the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia, which had rejected her plea to review the disbursement order.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a Motor Accident Claim Case (No. 125 of 2009) filed following the death of Mr. Priyank Chand in a vehicular accident on February 27, 2009. The claimants were the deceased’s mother (Urmila Chand, the appellant), his wife (Sonu Chand, respondent No. 1), and his two minor children (respondents No. 2 and 3).
The Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,82,000/- on November 11, 2011. After an appeal by the Insurance Company was dismissed by the High Court, the awarded amount was deposited with the Tribunal.
On April 21, 2015, based on a joint application signed by the appellant and respondent No. 1, the Tribunal passed an order for the disbursement of the compensation. As per this order, a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000 was issued to the appellant (mother), Rs. 6,26,000 was given to the respondent No. 1 (wife), and Rs. 3,00,000 each was placed in fixed deposits for the two minor children.
Subsequently, the appellant filed a review petition against the disbursement order, which the Tribunal dismissed on January 12, 2018, primarily on the ground that it was delayed by 6 months and 22 days. The appellant’s challenge to this dismissal was also rejected by the Gauhati High Court on January 22, 2021, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, argued that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not condoning the delay. He contended that the disbursement order was “grossly unfair,” as the appellant, being the mother and a class 1 legal heir, received only Rs. 1,00,000. It was also submitted that the appellant and her son were tactically prevented from entering the courtroom when the order was pronounced.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent, Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, submitted that the disbursement was made based on a joint application. It was emphasized that the appellant was present in court, accepted the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000, and put her signature on the order sheet, signifying her consent. The filing of the review petition, it was argued, was merely an “afterthought.”
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench, after examining the facts and the orders of the lower courts, found no reason to interfere. The judgment noted that the claimants had approached the Tribunal for disbursement through a “joint petition No. 223 of 2015,” which was “admittedly signed by the appellant herein as well as daughter in law – respondent No. 1.”
The Court highlighted the appellant’s conduct, stating, “The appellant received the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- which she encashed also. She has accepted the cheque without any protest and demur. It was upon a joint application and with open eyes.”
The bench further observed that the appellant not only voluntarily received the amount but also “put her signature on the order sheet confirming the receipt of the amount.” Agreeing with the High Court’s findings, the Supreme Court stated that she was deemed to know the contents of the order. The High Court had pointedly observed, “…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.”
Applying the legal principle against approbating and reprobating, the Supreme Court concluded, “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 Court held that the appellant could not now reopen the matter or dispute her own actions by raising “all after-thought contentions.” Finding no error in the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
