The Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken serious note of allegations against a lawyer accused of misusing a client’s signature to fraudulently withdraw compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). Justice Vivek Singh Thakur directed the Chairman of the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to personally investigate the matter and ensure timely action.
Background of the Case
The appellants, Rama Devi and others, filed an application seeking condonation of an 8-year, 8-month, and 14-day delay in appealing an MACT award dated August 1, 2015. The award was related to the death of Rama Devi’s husband in a motor accident. The appellants alleged that their former advocate, Harish Sharma, obtained Rama Devi’s signatures on blank papers under the pretext of releasing the compensation amount and filing an appeal for enhancement.
Read also:- Embezzlement in Banks Warrants Dismissal: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Termination
In 2023, Rama Devi discovered that an amount of ₹4.16 lakh had been credited to her bank account but was withdrawn using an ATM card issued without her knowledge. She alleged that her advocate misused her signatures to fraudulently withdraw the funds. Despite filing complaints with the Bar Council and the Shimla Police, no action was communicated to her.
Justice Thakur noted the “extraordinary inordinate delay” but emphasized the uncontested nature of the allegations and the appellants’ genuine grievances. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Brahampal v. National Insurance Co. (2021), the court highlighted that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation meant to secure just compensation for victims. The term “sufficient cause” for delay must be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Questions UP Govt’s Authority Over Banke Bihari Temple, Seeks State’s Reply
“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay... to enable courts to do substantial justice.”
— Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katji (1987)
The court condoned the delay, ordered the appeal to be registered, and listed the matter for further hearing on September 10, 2025.
Key Takeaways
- The court underscored the importance of protecting victims’ rights against legal malpractice.
- Authorities were directed to expedite inquiries into the alleged fraud.
- The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to substantive justice over technicalities.
Case Name: Rama Devi & Others v. Shiri Ram General Insurance Company Limited & Others
Case No.: CMP(M) No.1658 of 2024
Representation: Ms. Tim Saran for the Appellants; Respondents unrepresented.