Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kota vs Balram Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4315 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kota vs Balram Singh on 9 September, 2025

                                                    1
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                                       2025:CGHC:45781


                                                                                       NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        WP227 No. 866 of 2025

          1 - Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through, Its
          Registrar, Arvind Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari Aged About 45 Years, R/o
          Campus Of Dr. C.V. Raman University Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                          ... Petitioner(s)


                                                  versus


          1 - Balram Singh S/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S.
          Gorela,                District                  Bilaspur,                Chhattisgarh


          2 - Animesh Singh S/o Balram Singh Aged About 14 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S.
          Gorela,                District                  Bilaspur,                Chhattisgarh


          3 - Jayesh Singh S/o Balram Singh Aged About 11 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S.
          Gorela,                District                  Bilaspur,                Chhattisgarh


          4 - Bharat Singh S/o Balram Singh Aged About 9 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S.
          Gorela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Respondent No. 2 To 4 Minors Through Their

Next Friend And Father Balram Singh

5 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Daupara Bazaarpara Chowk Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver)

6 - Bharat Sahu S/o Late Sh. Jivan Lal Aged About 55 Years R/o Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"i. To kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Execution Case No. EXE. С.Т. / 279/2018, rejecting the petitioner's application for discharge;

ii. To kindly hold and declare that the petitioner has substantially complied with the decree and is not liable for any further execution or coercive process in the said matter;

iii. To kindly direct the learned Executing Court to pursue further recovery, if any, from Judgment-Debtor Nos. 1 and 2 alone, after duly considering the disclosures made by the petitioner in its application dated 17.01.2025;

iv. To kindly pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The facts of the present case are that a claim case under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by respondents No.1 to 4 on

account of death of Smt. Om Singh. On 22.1.2015, Smt. Om Singh

alongwith her father Hari Singh were going to Uslapur Railway Station

from Irrigation Colony, Sakri, when they reached near Gokhale Nala

and were waiting for someone, respondent No.5 - Rajesh Sahu while

driving a Mini Bus bearing registration No.C.G.04-E-0197 rashly and

negligently dashed her. Consequently, she sustained grievous injuries

and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital, where she was declared

dead. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied

under the authority of the petitioner.

3. Learned Claims Tribunal vide award dated 13.12.2017, awarded

compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization. The driver,

owner and the petitioner were held jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation. The claimants filed the execution case before the

learned Claims Tribunal, which was registered as Execution C.T.

No.279 of 2018. The petitioner appeared before the learned Executing

Court and deposited a sum of Rs.3,61,010/- on 25.8.2018.

4. An application was moved by the award holders under Order 21 Rule

46 of CPC and the learned Executing Court passed an order on

30.10.2018, directing the petitioner/ University to deposit a sum of

Rs.2,46,510/-, which was accordingly deposited on 31.10.2018. The

driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the

learned Executing Court. Vide order dated 12.9.2024, learned

Executing Court initiated proceedings for the arrest and civil detention

of the petitioner/ Registrar. The petitioner thereafter moved an

application on 17.1.2025 making prayer for discharge from the

execution proceedings on the ground that a substantial part of the

award i.e. Rs.6,07,520/- has already been deposited by the petitioner.

5. The claimants/ respondents No.1 to 4 filed reply to the said application.

The Learned Executing Court, vide order dated 17.6.2025, rejected the

application moved by the petitioner, applying the principle of joint and

several liability and refused to discharge the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

learned Tribunal had fastened liability jointly upon driver, owner and the

petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner has already deposited

Rs.6,07,520/- out of the total sum of compensation Rs.8,76,400/-. He

would contend that the driver and owner of the vehicle have

deliberately evaded execution proceedings for over six years. He

would contend that despite full cooperation of the petitioner, the

learned Executing Court initiated coercive action against him. He

would contend that the learned Executing Court wrongly proceeded on

the principle of joint and several liability, ignoring the principles of

fairness, equity and proportionate burden-sharing. He would also

submit that the learned Executing Court has not taken any action

against the defaulting parties. Accordingly, he would pray to set aside

the order dated 17.6.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused

the documents.

8. Admittedly, on account of death of Smt. Om Singh, a claim case was

filed by respondent No.4 and an award was passed by the learned

Tribunal on 13.12.2017, whereby a sum of Rs.8,76,400/- was awarded

alongwith interest @7.5%. The liability was fastened jointly and

severally upon the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the

petitioner.

9. In the execution case, the driver and owner have not appeared. It is

true that the petitioner has deposited Rs.6,07,520/- against the amount

of compensation. The petitioner moved an application before the

learned Executing Court seeking discharge from the execution

proceedings on the ground that he has deposited a substantial part of

the award and the driver and owner are deliberately evading service of

summons. The learned Tribunal rejected the said application.

10. It is well settled principle of law that in cases of negligence, each

wrongdoer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of

the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of

proceeding against all or any of them. The injured party is not

required to establish the extent of responsibility of each award debtor

separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of

liability of each award debtor separately.

11. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground

to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Nimmi