- (1.) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the parties. In a motor accident one Sangra lost his life. His widow, Smt. Umraji, Respondent No. 3 filed a claim on behalf of herself and her five minor children. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur which was being held by Shri Devi Prasad Shukla, the Appellant, gave an award of Rs. 29,700/ - together with interest which came to Rs. 36,798.85. Out of the principal amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - was awarded as compensation to the minor children. Shri R. C Bajpai, Respondent No. 2 was engaged by the widow as her counsel in the aforesaid claims case. He filed an application before the Tribunal for the issue of the recovery certificate on 6 -9 -82. It appears that Smt. Umraji later engaged another counsel Shri G. S. Ayachi and through him filed another application before the Tribunal submitting that the insurer had remitted the amount to the Tribunal by a Bank Draft and the amount be paid directly to her, she also prayed that this amount be paid to her, if possible, by a Bank Draft, instead of cash for reasons of security. This is clear from the order sheet of 24 -11 -82 The case was posted for 27 -11 -82. On 27 -11 -82 the case was adjourned to 29 -11 -82. and then to 30 -11 -82. The order sheet dated 30 -11 -82 contains Tribunal's direction for preparation of the voucher in the name of Shri R. C. Bajpai stating that Smt. Umraji has requested to get the voucher prepared in the name of Shri R. C. Bajpai. Accordingly, the entire amount of Rs. 36,798.85 was paid to him. Shri R. C. Bajpai deposited Rs. 15,000/ - in the Bank in the name of the minor children of the deceased. Smt. Umraji, Respondent No. 2, however, alleged that out of Rs. 36,798.85, Shri R. C. Bajpai, Respondent No. 2 had deposited only Rs,15,000/ - and the balance of Rs. 21,798.85 had not been paid by him to her. Shri R. C. Bajpai, however, stated that he had paid the entire amount in cash to her. Smt Umraji, therefore, reported the matter to the State Bar Council which initiated an enquiry. Smt. Umraji also wrote a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur complaining against Shri R.C. Bajpai. The High Court treated the said application as revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and issued notice to Shri R. C. Bajpai. Shri R. C. Bajpai paid Rs. 15000/ - to Smt. Umraji on 24 -3 -84. The High Court allowed the revision and directed the advocate, Shri R. C. Bajpai, to pay balance of Rs. 6,000/ - to Smt. Umraji. While allowing the revision, the High Court made certain observations in para 17 of its judgment against Shri R. C. Bajpai and also against Shri Devi Prasad Shukla, the Appellant, which reads as under: Before parting with this case, I must record my deep anguish and serious concern at the manner in which in illiterate and indigent widow had suffered aggravation of her misfortune resulting from the premature death of her husband in a motor accident on account of the conduct of Shri R. C. Bajpai, Advocate, whom she engaged as her counsel. This was facilitated by the order of Shri D. P. Shukla, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal who directed payment of the amount to Shri R. C. Bajpai inspite of the Petitioner's insistence that the money be paid to her directly and to none else on her behalf. I cannot help recording my strong disapproval of these acts of both the gentlemen. The Tribunal had a duty to ensure payment of compensation directly to the claimants who have already suffered a misfortune. Failure to discharge this duty vigilantly either due to negligence or design, must be strongly deprecated.
(3.) THE first part of this observation is against Shri Bajpai and the later part relates to Shri Devi Prasad Shukla, the Appellant. We are concerned, in this appeal, only with the remarks of the High Court against the Appellant. The Appellant seeks expunction of the said remark on the ground that the said remark was not warranted from the circumstances of the case as would be evident from the relevant order sheets. There is no denying the fact that Smt. Umraji had engaged Shri R C. Bajpai, Respondent No. 2 as her counsel but subsequently she engaged another counsel Shri G. S. Ayachi and through him filed an application before the Tribunal that the amount be paid to her by a Bank Draft instead of cash for reasons of security. The order -sheet dated 27 -11 -82, however, indicates that the Tribunal thought it fit to pass an order in the presence of both the counsel and Smt. Umraji and as neither Shri Ayachi nor Smt. Umraji was present on that date in the Court, the Tribunal directed Shri R. C. Bajpai to appear on the next date along with Smt. Umraji and Shri G. S. Ayachi so that further proceedings may be taken with regard to the voucher. On 30 -11 -82, Shri R. C. Bajpai, Shri G. S. Ayachi and Smt. Umraji presented themselves before the Tribunal. The order sheet of 30 -11 -82 indicates that Smt. Umraji requested that the voucher be prepared in the name of Shri Bajpai and the amount be paid to her before the Tribunal. The voucher was accordingly prepared in the name of Shri P. C. Bajpai but the same was not to be paid unless Smt. Umraji was present. The order sheets of 27 -11 -82 and 30 -11 -82 leave no room for doubt that the Appellant ordered the preparation of the voucher in the name of Shri Bajpai only according to the desire of Smt. Umraji. As there were two counsels of Smt. Umraji, one said that the amount be paid to Shri Bajpai. The other counsel Shri Ayachi had applied that the amount be paid to Smt. Umraji. The Appellant thought it proper that Smt. Umraji as well as her two counsel should be present in Court before any order could be passed regarding the voucher. He, therefore, asked Shri Bajpai to appear in the Court on the next date alongwith the other counsel Shri Ayachi and Smt. Umraji. On 30th November, 1982 when Shri Bajpai appeared before the Tribunal alongwith the other counsel and Smt. Umraji, she requested that the voucher be prepared in the name of Shri Bajpai and the amount be paid to her before the Tribunal by a Bank Draft. In the face of the relevant order sheets of 24th, 27th and 30th November, 1982, it cannot be said that the Appellant had shown any negligence or that he had any edition with Shri Bajpai in so doing. The High Court, in our opinion, was rather uncharitable in making the remarks against the Appellant.;