Gajinder Kalia vs Gorakh Bahadur
2012 Latest Caselaw 3523 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision:25th May, 2012

+       CM(M) 262/2012

        GAJINDER KALIA                      ..... Petitioner
                     Through:           Mr.Lokesh Kumar and
                                        Mr.Harish Nigam, Advocates.
                      versus

        GORAKH BAHADUR                          ..... Respondent
                   Through:             None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                               JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Claim Petition (suit No.1067/2008) was preferred by the Respondent against the Petitioner (the registered owner) and Respondent No.2 (Rajan Nayak) the rightful owner of vehicle No.DL 9SC 8993 involved in the accident. With the help of the learned counsel for the Appellant I have gone through the orders dated 28.01.2011, 05.05.2011, 05.08.2011, 01.11.2011 & 21.12.2011.

2. It is apparent that Respondent No.2 had never been served during enquiry before the Claims Tribunal. It is evident that the attendance of Mr.T.S.Gehlot, Advocate as proxy counsel for Mr.Harish, Advocate, counsel for the Petitioner was wrongly

recorded for Respondent No.2 before the Claims Tribunal. Ultimately, the Respondent No.2 was ordered to be proceeded ex parte which according to the Petitioner prejudices his right inasmuch as he has not been served with the summons and he (the petitioner) had sold the vehicle involved in the accident to the Respondent No.2 on 18.06.2004 whereas this accident occurred on 26.03.2008. It is submitted that the RTO was duly informed about the same and thus he has no liability to pay the compensation.

3. In any case these questions are to be gone into during enquiry.

The order proceeding Respondent No.2 ex parte in the circumstances was no made out. The order dated 05.08.2011 and 21.12.2011 are set aside. It is ordered that the Claims Tribunal shall direct the Respondent No.1 herein to take steps for service of Respondent No.2 for enforcing his attendance.

4. The petition is allowed in above terms

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 25, 2012 mr