Pradeep Singh & Anr. vs Raj Kumar & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2529 Del

$~22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   Date of Decision: 31st March, 2016
+      MAC.APP. 160/2010

       PRADEEP SINGH & ANR.                                ..... Appellants
                    Through:            Mr. Sudhir Kumar & Mr. Gulab
                                        Chandra Yadav, Proxy Advs.

                          versus

       RAJ KUMAR & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
                    Through:            None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                          ORDER

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

CM No. 2638/2014 (for restoration)

1. The first respondent (Raj Kumar) had instituted an accident claim case (MACT No. 502/2008) on 25.07.2006 before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) seeking compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 31.05.2006 statedly involving motor vehicle described as Tata 407 bearing registration No. DL 1LB 1185. In the claim petition, the appellants herein were impleaded as first and second respondents on the plea that the said vehicle was driven by the first appellant, it being registered in the name of the second appellant. Additionally, New India Assurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as third respondent (it being second respondent in the appeal at hand) on the averment that the vehicle was insured against third party risk with it for the

period in question. The tribunal decided the case by judgment dated 04.09.2009 which indicates that both the appellants had participated in the inquiry by submitting pleadings admitting the involvement of the vehicle but denying any rash/negligent driving on the part of the first respondent. The second appellant admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident. The insurer (the second respondent herein), however, had pleaded breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that the first appellant was not holding a valid or effective driving license. The said plea was upheld. While the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation awarded by the said judgment, it was granted right to recover the same from the registered owner (second appellant).

2. The appeal at hand was filed in February, 2010. When it was taken up for the first time on 16.03.2010, the counsel for the appellants was not ready for hearing and so the matter was adjourned. Notice was directed to be issued by order dated 05.04.2010 but steps were not taken. The direction for steps to be taken had to be reiterated on several dates. Eventually, on 30.09.2010, the second respondent appeared. Taking note of the fact that the issue (of recovery rights) was essentially between the appellant and the insurer, the service of the first respondent (claimant) was dispensed with. The proceedings recorded on the subsequent dates indicate that assistance at the hearing was avoided by the appellants/applicants. On 27.09.2012, the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Later, on application being moved, it was restored to its original number by order dated 05.11.2012. Once again, the appellants would show no interest in the

subsequent proceedings and the matter had to be adjourned on several dates, to be again dismissed in default and for want of prosecution by 13.12.2013.

3. The application at hand was moved seeking restoration against the above backdrop. Notice was directed to be issued to second respondent on requisite steps to be taken in terms of order dated 07.02.2014. As has come to be noted in the proceedings recorded on 25.09.2014, 01.07.2015, 25.08.2015 and 08.10.2015 proper steps were not taken in this regard. The default on the part of the appellants/applicants has been to this extent that no one even appeared before the Court on 03.12.2015 when the matter was placed with his report by the Registrar. Thus, the presence of the counsel for the appellant had to be secured through court notice.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up, proxy counsel who is present for the counsel for the applicants/appellants is unable to give any explanation for the repeated defaults.

5. In above facts and circumstances, the application for restoration is dismissed for non-prosecution.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) MARCH 31, 2016 nk