Dr. (Mrs) Usha Nath Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority and ors.

Dr. (Mrs) Usha Nath vs Ranchi Regional Development Authority and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 20, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/515638

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/515638
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Decided On: Jan 20, 2005
Case Number: WP (C) No. 182 of 2005
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. (Mrs) Usha Nath

Advocate Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.

Respondent

Ranchi Regional Development Authority and ors.

Advocate A.K. Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: [2005(2)JCR278(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.m.y. eqbal, j.1. the petitioner, who is a non-resident indian, submitted a house plan to the respondent rrda in april, 1995 along with fee of rs. 11,400/-. the fee was paid by demand draft. the petitioner at that time was an nri practicing in united arab emirate as consultant obstetrician & gynecologist and now she is desirous to return india from uae.2. the petitioner's case is that she was never informed about the sanction of the plan. however, after coming to india when she inquired, she was informed by the respondent--rrda that her plan was not sanctioned due to some defects and was rejected in 1999. the said rejection was communicated to the petitioner in 2002. the petitioner, thereafter, by letter dated 27.3.2003 was informed that the fee deposited by her, shall not be refunded and she will have to submit a fresh plan if she so likes. the petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid letter dated 27.3.2003 and seeks an order directing rrda to accept the same fee and sanction the plan.3. as the petitioner's case is admittedly at a belated stage, no direction can be issued for sanctioning the said house plan and/or for the refund of the entire fee deposited by her. however, the petitioner may file a fresh plan according to the prevailing bye-laws and deposit the prevailing fee minus half of the amount deposited by her earlier. then the rrda shall take up the matter and sanctioned the plan in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of the fresh plan from the petitioner.4. with the aforesaid directions and observations, this application is deposed of.

Full Judgment

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a Non-Resident Indian, submitted a house plan to the respondent RRDA in April, 1995 along with fee of Rs. 11,400/-. The fee was paid by demand draft. The petitioner at that time was an NRI practicing in United Arab Emirate as Consultant Obstetrician & Gynecologist and now she is desirous to return India from UAE.

2. The petitioner's case is that she was never informed about the sanction of the plan. However, after coming to India when she inquired, she was informed by the respondent--RRDA that her plan was not sanctioned due to some defects and was rejected in 1999. The said rejection was communicated to the petitioner in 2002. The petitioner, thereafter, by letter dated 27.3.2003 was informed that the fee deposited by her, shall not be refunded and she will have to submit a fresh plan if she so likes. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid letter dated 27.3.2003 and seeks an order directing RRDA to accept the same fee and sanction the plan.

3. As the petitioner's case is admittedly at a belated stage, no direction can be issued for sanctioning the said house plan and/or for the refund of the entire fee deposited by her. However, the petitioner may file a fresh plan according to the prevailing bye-laws and deposit the prevailing fee minus half of the amount deposited by her earlier. Then the RRDA shall take up the matter and sanctioned the plan in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of the fresh plan from the petitioner.

4. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this application is deposed of.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2005 Same Parties Dr. (Mrs) Usha Nath vs Ranchi Regional Development Authority ... Same Subject Civil Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Civil