Allahabad High Court
Gurnirman Singh vs Kamlesh Kumari And Another on 28 November, 2014
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64044 of 2014
Petitioner :- Gurnirman Singh
Respondent :- Kamlesh Kumari And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradyumn Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal, as well as recovery order dated 18.02.2014, by which the recall application of the petitioner has been rejected.
It transpires from the record that respondent no.1 had filed claim petition No. 428 of 2009 before the M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Mainpuri for receiving the compensation amount against the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2, and learned Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2012 had passed an award of Rs. 3,16,500/- in favour of respondent no.1.
Aggrieved with the order dated 04.04.2012 the respondent no.2 had field has field a First Appeal From Order No. 1931 of 2012 (Manish Arora Vs. Rajeev Kumar and others) and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2012 has passed the following order:-
"Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. The appellant may take steps to serve the respondents by registered post as well as by ordinary post.
Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Mainpuri in M.A.C.P. No.428 of 2009, shall remain stayed, provided the appellant deposits the fifty percent awarded amount within four weeks. The claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited. The appellant is further restrained from selling the tanker no.HR-63/2305.
Office is directed to remit the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal within two weeks, which shall be adjusted towards the deposit to be made by the appellant."
In compliance of the said order the respondent no.2 had deposited the fifty percent of awarded amount and remaining fifty percent had to be realized from petitioner. After knowing the order, the petitioner filed recall application on 13.06.2013 before the learned Tribunal, meanwhile the Assistant Collector of Delhi had issued recover notice to the petitioner, and finally the learned Tribunal had rejected the recall application to the petitioner vide an order dated 18.02.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of incident, the vehicle in question was not in the possession of the petitioner and learned Tribunal had also given his finding to that extent. Further submits that however, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2012 had stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Mainpuri in M.A.C.P. No.428 of 2009, subject to deposits the fifty percent awarded amount within four weeks, by the Manish Arora (Respondent no.2), then at this stage the recovery can not be asked for from the petitioner.
Heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is admitted situation that Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2012 had stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 04.04.2012 in favour of Sri Manish Arora, subject to deposits the fifty percent awarded amount within four weeks.
As per order dated 14.05.2012 passed by Division Bench of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 04.04.2012 has been stayed in favour of Sri Manish Arora only, and consequently vide order dated 12.12.20012 the recovery officer issued the recovery certificate against the petitioner, for deposition of remaining amount. Therefore, it is apparent that operation of the order dated 04.04.2012 had been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court only in favour of Sri Manish Arora and once recall application moved by the petitioner has been turned down, then there was no restrained order, by any competent Court in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the authority had rightly proceeded in the matter for recovery of the remaining amount, from the petitioner.
In compliance of the order passed in aforesaid FAFO, the fifty percent of the amount had been deposited by the respondent no.2 and same has been paid to the respondent no.1
Learned counsel for the petitioner further apprised to the Court the aforesaid FAFO is pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondents. Steps may be taken within a week, returnable at an early date. The respondents are allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned orders dated 18.02.2014 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to deposition of half of the amount of Rs. 158250 by the petitioner, within three weeks time from today.
List this matter after five weeks.
Order Date :- 28.11.2014
VKG
