Geeta Parashar vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1234 Del

6
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +    CM(M).No.653/2008

                               Date of Decision: 4th March, 2010
%

      GEETA PARASHAR                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. M.K. Vashisht, Adv.

                    versus

    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Respondent
                   Through : Mr. Ravi Bansal, Adv.
                             for R-1.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may             NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?            NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                    NO
        reported in the Digest?

                        JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM(M) No.653/2008

1. The accident dated 21st December, 1994 resulted in the

death of Prabhu Dayal. The deceased was survived by his

widow and two minor children who filed the claim petition

before the Claims Tribunal.

2. The offending vehicle was owned by Nawal Kishore

Sharma at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal

passed the award against the respondent. The Claims

Tribunal also granted recovery rights to the respondent to

recover the award amount from the driver, Prem Singh and

the owner, Nawal Kishore Sharma after making the payment

of the award amount to the claimants.

3. The respondent has paid the award amount to the

claimants and has filed the recovery proceeding against the

driver, Prem Singh and the owner, Nawal Kishore Sharma.

4. Nawal Kishore Sharma expired during the pendency of

the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal on 9 th May, 2002.

The award was passed on 13th April, 2004.

5. The petitioner herein is the widow of Nawal Kishore

Sharma and she has filed the objections in the execution

proceedings on various grounds inter-alia that the award has

been passed against a dead person, namely, Nawal Kishore

Sharma who expired on 9th May, 2002. The objections have

not been disposed of by the Claims Tribunal.

6. The petitioner has challenged the execution

proceedings filed by the respondent against the petitioner.

7. The present petition is premature in as much as the

Claims Tribunal has not passed any order on the objections

filed by the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed

as premature.

8. The Claims Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the

objections filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and

till then, the execution of the impugned award against the

petitioner shall remain stayed.

9. All pending applications stand disposed of.

10. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims

Tribunal on 22nd March, 2010.

11. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the parties under signature of Court Master.

12. Copy of this order be sent to the Claims Tribunal for

compliance.

J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 04, 2010 mk