Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-001352-001352 – 2023 |
| Diary Number | 7385/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Does voluntary acceptance and encashment of a compensation cheque, coupled with signature on the disbursement order, preclude a claimant from seeking review of that order? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that when a claimant jointly applies for disbursement of compensation, signs the tribunal’s order, accepts the cheque, and encashes it without demur, she is estopped from later challenging the apportionment. A review petition filed after a delay of over six months, without satisfactory explanation or supporting medical evidence, cannot be condoned. Equitable principles of approbation and reprobation and laches bar reopening settled disbursement orders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The claimants (mother, daughter-in-law, two minors) obtained an award of ₹11,82,000 for a fatal motor accident. By joint application dated 21.04.2015, the tribunal disbursed ₹1,00,000 to the mother, ₹6,26,000 to the daughter-in-law, and directed ₹3,00,000 each into fixed deposits for the minors. The mother signed the disbursement order, accepted and encashed the cheque, then filed a delayed review petition alleging unfair apportionment. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | High Court of Gauhati’s order dated 22.01.2021 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A claimant who jointly applies for disbursement, signs the order sheet, accepts and encashes the tribunal’s cheque cannot later challenge the disbursement.
- Delay of over six months in filing a review petition, without documentary proof (e.g., medical records), is fatal to condonation.
- Equitable doctrine of approbation and reprobation applies to review petitions in motor accident claims.
- Tribunal and High Court orders confirming estoppel on acceptance of compensation are binding on lower forums.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to oppose belated review applications in compensation matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Limitation and Delay
- The tribunal dismissed the review petition as delayed by 6 months and 22 days, without satisfactory explanation or medical proof of surgery.
- Joint Application and Signature
- Claimants filed a joint petition for disbursement; the appellant signed it and the disbursement order (21.04.2015) confirming receipt of ₹1,00,000.
- Acceptance and Estoppel
- By accepting and encashing the cheque without protest, the appellant was deemed aware of and agreed to the apportionment; she cannot approbate and reprobate.
- Merits Not Reopened
- High Court, while refusing to condone delay, also reviewed merits and held no fraud or unfairness vitiates the order given her conduct.
- Equitable Principles
- Delay and conduct of claimant preclude reopening; review jurisdiction must be sparingly exercised, especially when one party changes mind after benefiting.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- The ₹1,00,000 awarded to the mother was disproportionately low compared to total award.
- Delay was due to medical surgery (25.05.2015–09.12.2015).
- She and her son were prevented from entering the courtroom when disbursement order was pronounced.
Respondent (Daughter-in-law & Others)
- The appellant was present when disbursement order passed, signed the order sheet, and accepted the cheque voluntarily.
- No infirmity or fraud in the order; review petition filed as an afterthought.
Factual Background
On 27.02.2009, Mr. Priyank Chand died in a collision between his Indica car and a truck. His mother (appellant), daughter-in-law, and two minor grandchildren jointly claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded ₹11,82,000 on 11.11.2011. The High Court upheld that award on 09.09.2014. By joint petition dated 21.04.2015, the tribunal disbursed ₹1,00,000 to the mother, ₹6,26,000 to the daughter-in-law, and directed ₹3,00,000 each into FDs for minors. The mother signed and encashed her cheque, then filed a review petition after a six-month delay, claiming unfair apportionment.
Statutory Analysis
- Review petitions under procedural rules are subject to strict limitation; here, delayed by over six months without proof.
- The tribunal and High Court applied principles of laches and estoppel to bar review of a disbursement order once acted upon by the claimant.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – High Court’s approach on delay and acceptance affirmed.
Citations
- 2025 INSC 1072
- Civil Appeal No. 1352 of 2023 (C.A. No.-001352-001352 – 2023)
- Diary No. 7385/2022