‘She Acted With Open Eyes’: SC Dismisses Woman’s Plea Against Insufficient Disbursal of Compensation

Last Updated:September 08, 2025, 19:40 IST

"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 SC said

The High Court has rightly observed that she knew the contents of the order, the SC opined. (File)

The Supreme Court has dismissed a woman’s plea against the Gauhati High Court’s order rejecting her revision application against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s decision to dismiss her review plea on disbursal of compensation amount in respect of death of her son in 2009.

A bench of Justices N V Anjaria and Atul S Chandurkar dismissed an appeal filed by Urmila Chand against the High Court’s order of January 22, 2021.

The court noted the appellant received the cheque for Rs 1,00,000 which she encashed also. She has accepted the cheque without any protest and demur.

“It was upon a joint application and with open eyes. Not only that appellant voluntarily received the said amount, but she also put her signature on the order sheet confirming the receipt of the amount," the bench said.

The High Court has rightly observed that she knew the contents of the order, the court opined.

“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 bench said.

The High Court agreed with the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that there was no satisfactory explanation of delay in filing and the facts to justify the delay, also adverted the factual aspect on the merits regarding the conduct of the appellant.

The tribunal had disbursed the amount of compensation. A cheque of Rs 1,00,000 was given in favour of the appellant herein who was the mother, whereas Rs 6,26,000 was given to the respondent No. 1, daughter in law, Sonu Chand. Further, cheques for Rs 3,00,000 each was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of minor respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Claimants No. 2 and 3.

The appellant’s counsel submitted that the Tribunal as well as the High Court erred in not condoning the delay of 6 months. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal which was sought to be reviewed by the appellant, was grossly unfair, therefore was unsustainable.

He submitted that the Tribunal paid only Rs 1,00,000 to the appellant widow, whereas the total amount awarded to all the claimants was much higher. The counsel that the apportionment was contrary to the principles of successions law in view that mother is a class one legal heir. He claimed that injustice was done to her in disbursement.

The Tribunal had awarded a total sum of Rs 11,82,000 on April 21, 2015.

The respondents’ counsel submitted that the appellant did accept Rs 1,00,000 and put her signature on the order sheet, accepting the cheque amount. He said that filing of the review petition was an afterthought. The appellant had conducted herself voluntarily in accepting the amount and putting her signature.

Having gone through the facts and the order passed by the High Court, the court noted the order was passed on the said joint application, which was admittedly signed by the appellant herein as well as daughter in law – respondent No. 1. It contained a prayer to allow the claimants to withdraw the amount awarded towards compensation. Nothing more was indicated much less the share of the respective parties.

“Looking to the facts and the conduct of the appellant in jointly applying and thereafter accepting the compensation and encashing the cheque, no error could be booked in the order passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. The operative facts do not permit this Court to take any different view," the bench said.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

News india ‘She Acted With Open Eyes’: SC Dismisses Woman’s Plea Against Insufficient Disbursal of Compensation

Read More