Delhi High Court
Shri Hirdeynarain & Ors. vs Shri Ravinder Kumar & Ors. on 19 December, 2011
Author: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: February 28, 2011
Judgment delivered on: December 19,2011
CM Nos. 22059, 22060/2010 and R.P. No. 507/2010 in FAO
No. 380/2001
Shri Hirdey Narain & Ors. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate.
Vs.
Shri Ravinder Kumar & Ors. ......Respondent.
Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
*
CM Nos. 22059/2010 & 22060/2010
By these applications filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act the applicant seeks condonation of delay in filing
and refiling of the review application.
For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are
allowed. Delay in filing and refiling of the review application is
condoned.
The applications stand disposed of.
Review P. No. 507/2010
1. By this application moved under Section 151 CPC the
applicant/DTC seeks review/modification/rectification of the
order dated 6.4.2009 passed by this Court.
2. Arguing the present application, Mr.Vinay Sabharwal,
counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that no challenge
was made by the appellant to the liability of the compensation
fixed by the MACT Tribunal on the owner Ms.Ranjana Mehta,
but due to inadvertence, this Court while deciding the appeal,
directed payment of the enhanced compensation by the
respondents with upto date interest. Counsel thus submitted
that in fact direction for payment of enhanced compensation
should have been given only to the respondent No.3-owner of
the offending bus and not against the respondent No.2-DTC.
3. Opposing the present application, Mr.Y.R.Sharma, counsel
appearing for the non-applicants/petitioners submitted that the
offending bus was under the control, supervision and operation
of the respondent No.2/DTC and, therefore, it was the liability of
the respondent/DTC to pay the amount of the compensation.
Counsel also submitted that in the grounds of appeal the non-
applicants have raised a specific plea to hold the respondents
jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the offending
vehicle to pay the amount of compensation.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the order under review.
5. On the perusal of the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by this
court in appeal, it is manifest that the ground taken by the non-
applicants in the appeal holding the respondent/DTC jointly and
severally liable along with the owner of the offending vehicle
was not discussed and, therefore, it would not be safe to assume
that this Court, while deciding the appeal, intended to hold the
DTC liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation. The
learned MACT Tribunal in the award under challenge held the
owner of the offending vehicle only liable to pay the amount of
compensation and not the DTC and, therefore, in the absence of
the said issue concerning the liability of the DTC being argued
before the Court and then discussed in the order in appeal, it
cannot be said that just in the operative paragraph while giving
directions the expression „respondents‟ has been used, the
same by itself would make the DTC liable to pay the enhanced
amount of compensation. On the contrary there being no
discussion by the court on the said issue would mean that this
court has not set aside the finding of the learned MACT Court on
this issue.
6. The order dated 6.4.2009 passed by this Court thus
requires modification. The review application moved by the
applicant/DTC is accordingly allowed. The order dated 6.4.2009
passed by this Court in appeal stands modified to the extent of
giving direction to the respondent No.3/owner of the offending
vehicle only to pay the enhanced amount of compensation in
place of the expression used as "the respondents" in the said
order.
7. With the above direction, the present review application is
disposed of.
December , 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
dc
