REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.          1821-1822                   OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.23035-23036 of 2005)

U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow ….

Appellant

Versus

Manju Goel & Ors. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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