Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Disbursement and Dismisses Appeal Over Delay and Conduct

A bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by Urmila Chand challenging the Gauhati High Court's refusal to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in a civil revision arising from a motor-accident compensation disbursement. The challenge attacked the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's disbursal order and the Tribunal's rejection of a belated review petition as barred by limitation.

The Court held that the appellant could not reopen the disbursement after having jointly applied for release of funds, signed the disbursement order and encashed the cheque, and that the delay in seeking review was unexplained. The Court noted the High Court's finding that the appellant "consciously and voluntarily accepted the cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh, having successfully encashed it without any demur," and agreed that the order could not be set aside as vitiated by fraud. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 appellant now cannot reopen or dispute the factums of her own act by showing disagreement to the disbursement raising all after-thought contentions." The appeal was dismissed.

Background The dispute arose from Motor Accident Claim Case No. 125 of 2009 instituted by the appellant (mother), respondent No.1 (daughter-in-law) and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (minor grandchildren) after the death of Priyank Chand in a road accident on 27.02.2009. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,82,000 by judgment dated 11.11.2011. The insurer's appeal was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court on 09.09.2014, and an interim order in Civil Appeal No.79 of 2012 had earlier permitted interim payments of Rs.1,00,000 to each claimant.

Pursuant to a joint application filed on 21.04.2015, the Tribunal passed a disbursal order by which cheques were issued: Rs.1,00,000 to the appellant, Rs.6,26,000 (with interest) to respondent No.1, and directions to deposit Rs.3,00,000 each as fixed deposits for the minor claimants. The appellant signed the joint petition and the order sheet and encashed the Rs.1,00,000 cheque. After filing an RTI request, she filed a review petition, which the Tribunal dismissed as barred by delay of six months and 22 days; her alleged medical incapacity (surgery) was not supported by documentary proof according to the Tribunal.

The appellant then filed a civil revision in the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed the petition and observed that the petitioner had accepted the cheque and signed the order sheet, and that she failed to explain why she did not seek a certified copy of the order on 21.04.2015. The High Court recorded: “Therefore, when the petitioner had signed the order sheet dated 21.04.2015 and when she has received a cheque for Rs. 1.00 lakh, she is deemed to know of the contents of the said order. Thus, having accepted the order dated 21.04.2015 by which the award was apportioned, the plea that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings or the contents of order dated 21.04.2015, falls through as unacceptable. The order dated 21.04.2015 cannot be said to be vitiated by fraud.”

On appeal to this Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the apportionment was unfair and that delay should have been condoned; counsel for the respondents relied on the joint petition, the appellant's signature, and her encashment of the cheque to show voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal and the High Court on both the unexplained delay and the appellant's conduct, applied the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate, and dismissed the appeal on 03 September 2025.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2023 Case Title: Urmila Chand v. Sonu Chand and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranav Sachdeva (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover (Advocate)