Col.(Retd.) Gulvir Singh vs Daya Shankar Gupta & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 792 Del

                                     UNREPORTED
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+ MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM No.4082/2010


COL.(RETD.) GULVIR SINGH                         ..... Appellant
                   Through:            Mr. S.T. Srinivasan and
                                       Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocates
                   versus

DAYA SHANKAR GUPTA & ORS.          ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate
                          For R-1.

%                           Date of Decision : February 09, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                            J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

This appeal has been filed with a prayer of setting aside the

interim award dated 3.2.2010 passed in MACT No.260/2009 by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi.

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the Claims Tribunal has passed the interim award dated 03.02.10

without passing any order on the application under Section 151 CPC

filed by the appellant for deletion of his name from the array of

parties nor afforded any opportunity to adduce his evidence before

awarding interim compensation.

2. By an order dated March 4, 2010, notice of the appeal was

issued to the respondents No.2 and 3. Notice was also issued to the

Station House Officer, P.S. Keshav Puram, Delhi to attend this court

alongwith case file of FIR No.183/2008 dated 3rd August, 2008 to

explain whether the driver and owner of the offending vehicle had

been prosecuted under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was

further directed that the SHO shall also investigate as to who was the

real owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident.

3. The status report has been filed by the SHO, which is placed on

record. According to this report, the investigations revealed that the

registered owner of vehicle No. DL 9C 4671 is the appellant as per

the records of the State Transport Department, South West Zone,

New Delhi. He sold the vehicle to Shri Lalit Kumar in the year 2005

and handed over all the original documents to him. The vehicle was

thereafter sold to Shri Veer Singh and further to Shri Chetan Sharma.

Shri Chetan Sharma in reply to the notice under Section 133 of the

Motor Vehicles Act stated that his friend Sudesh Kumar, son of

Satpal Gupta, resident of WZ-573B, Gali No.14, Sadh Nagar, Palam

Colony, Delhi was driving the Maruti Car No. DL 9C 4671 at the

time of the accident. Sudesh Kumar was charge-sheeted under

Section 279, 337, 338 IPC and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

submitted before the Trial Court. A Kalandara under Section 146/196

Motor Vehicle Act was prepared against the appellant, Col. (Retd.)

Gulvir Singh, the registered owner of the offending vehicle No. DL

9C 4671 and submitted before the Trial Court.

4. In view of the aforesaid, in my view, the trial court has rightly

held that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay interim compensation to

the petitioner. The interim award dated 3rd February, 2010 is

accordingly upheld. In case, however, at the time of the passing of

the final award, respondent No.2 is not held liable to pay the same, he

shall be entitled to reimbursement of the amount of the interim award

paid by him from the actual owner of the offending vehicle.

With the aforesaid observations, MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM

No.4082/2010 stand disposed of.

Parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on

14.03.2010.

Records be sent back to the Trial Court.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) February 09, 2011 sk