Delhi High Court
Grs Roadlines Pvt Ltd vs Manisha Kumbhar & Ors on 2 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 680/2010
GRS ROADLINES PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. with
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate
versus
MANISHA KUMBHAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Saxena, Advocate
for the Respondents No.1 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 21.07.2009 and an
order dated 16.08.2010 whereby a Claim Petition bearing
No.529/2002 and a Misc. Application No.1/2010 respectively
were decided by the Claims Tribunal.
2. In Suit No.529/2002, a Claim Petition filed by the Respondents
No.1 to 5 was allowed and a compensation of `14,99,000/- was
awarded. Respondents No.6 was impleaded as a driver in the
Claim Petition and the Appellant was impleaded as the owner of
the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1PB-2427.
Obviously, the Appellant (the owner) and the Sixth Respondent
(the driver) were ex-parte during the inquiry of the Claim
Petition. On filing of the Execution Petition, the Appellant filed
an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC stating that it had
no knowledge of filing of the Claim Petition and that the notice
of the Claim Petition was served upon one Shri Inderjeet Singh,
who at the relevant time was 70 years old, (born on
18.04.1935). The said Inderjeet Singh was a non working
Director of the Company. The Notice of the Claim Petition was
sent at M-189, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, whereas
Notice of the Execution Petition was sent at E-577, Greater
Kailash, Part-II where Harpreet Singh, Managing Director and
the other Directors, who were looking after the affairs of the
Appellant's Company, were residing.
3. During hearing of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC,
the Appellant produced the driving licence of the driver
Ravinder Kumar, valid on the date of the accident for driving
HTV and a cover note showing that the insurance in respect of
the vehicle involved in the accident was obtained for the period
11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003. A Certificate dated 04.08.2010
issued by the Insurer National Insurance Company Limited was
also placed on record of the Claims Tribunal to show that the
Insurance Policy held by the Appellant was in force on the date
of the accident.
4. By order dated 16.08.2010, the Claims Tribunal held that the
Appellant had sufficient notice of the Claim Petition and
refused to consider the fact that the vehicle was insured on the
date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal consequently
declined to set aside the judgment dated 21.07.2009.
5. Technically speaking, the service on any of the Directors was
sufficient service. But, at the same time, it has to be borne in
mind that Inderjeet Singh was a non-working Director and was
aged about 70 years on the date of the alleged service. It is
claimed that he was a heart patient and a diabetic. The
Appellant has placed on record that the registered office of the
Appellant's Company was changed to M-189, Greater Kailash,
Part-II, New Delhi w.e.f. 02.05.2001.
6. In this view of the matter, particularly, when it is shown that the
offending vehicle was duly insured and the driver had a valid
driving licence on the date of the accident, primarily it was for
the Insurance Company to have satisfied the award, yet no
notice could be issued to the Insurance Company as the
Insurance particulars were not available at the relevant time.
7. In the circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of
justice to set aside the judgment dated 21.07.2009 and order
dated 16.08.2010. At the same time, taking care of the interest
of the Claimants, the orders are set aside, subject to the payment
of costs of `1,00,000/- which the learned Counsel for the
Appellant undertakes to pay to the first Respondent on the next
date before the Claims Tribunal.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. Since the case is very old, it is directed that the Claim Petition
after impleading the National Insurance Company Limited, (the
Insurer of the vehicle), shall be decided expeditiously and an
endeavor shall be made to dispose of the same within a period
of six months from the next date before the Claims Tribunal.
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assured that full co-
operation shall be provided in expeditious disposal of the Claim
Petition.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on
28.05.2012.
12. The amount deposited by the Appellant shall be refunded to it
after the costs, as aforesaid, is paid to the First Respondent
before the Claims Tribunal.
13. Copy of the order be given Dasti to the counsel for the parties
under the signature of the Court Master.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 02, 2012
vk
