IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ Petitton (227)1 N0. 13^^/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT ^^ys^ ^'•""t'"....- ^^^••""" Smt. Manjeet Kour W/o Late Harjeet Singh @ Rinkuai ^Sandeshd aged about 21 years, R/o Quarter No. 8/B, Street No. 09, Sector - 3, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : CoUeetor, O/o Collectorate, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent, State Garage Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.&.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE Safr/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA a ff % R S ^:: A 1 ^ S!I!i' .<< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra s\ II IIE Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition (2271 No.1388 of 2011 Smt. Manjeet Kour versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Smt Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri RajendraTripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28th March, 2011) Heard on admission 2. The Claims Tribunal has allowed respondents/non-claimants' application under Order 11 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the Code') and has directed the petitioner to produce a certificate of remarriage. In the same order, the Claims Tribunal has directed that if the petitioner submits proof about death of the parents of the deceased and non-existence of any other legal heir of the deceased, the amount of compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') shall be disbursed to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both the orders are absolutely illegal and the petitioner cannot be fcompelled to prove and produce the certificate of remarriage. It is ^ "^ ts\ also submitted by learned counsel that even after remarriage, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. 4. It appears that the petitioner has moved an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Harjeet Singh alias Rinku. In course of enquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the non-claimants/respondents moved an application on 5-2-2010 (Annexure P-2) to the effect that the claimant/petitioner has performed remarrigge and the last rites of the deceased has been performed by his brother and the petitioner has not made correct statements in the Claims Tribunal. By submitting another application under Order 11 Rule 19 of the Code, the petitioner has been noticed tosubmit certificate of remarriage issued by the Jabalpur Gurudwara. 5. In the opinion ofthis Court, in a proceedingunder Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is required to adjudicate 'just compensation' to which the claimant is entitled. The words 'just compensation' would mean an amount for which the claimant is entitled in law as a dependent ofthe deceased. Thus, in the present case, 'just compensation' can only be decided after verifying true facts of the petitioner's remarriage, which has a bearing on the outcome ofthe proceedings pending before the Claims Tribunal. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error by directing the petitioner to produce the certificate of remarriage issued by the Jabalpur Gurudwara. \Similarly, the condition attached while allowing the application under Section 140 of the Act is also proper because if the parents of the deceased are alive, they are also entitled in law to receive the amount under the no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. 7. This Court does not find any such error in the impugned order which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge HS ai