Delhi High Court
Kajal Sharma & Anr vs Amarjeet Pandit & Ors on 19 July, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 74/2017 and CM APPL.2274-75/2017,
CM APPL.14200 /2017
KAJAL SHARMA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Sunaina Pasricha, Advocate
versus
AMARJEET PANDIT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder K. Rawat, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate for
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The service and presence of second and third respondent is
dispensed with as they did not press the claim which appears to have
been initially made on their behalf, it having been accordingly
dismissed by order dated 21.03.2016 of the Tribunal as noted in (para
2 of) the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2016. Their names shall be
struck off from the array of parties.
2. The first respondent is described as driver of taxi bearing
registration no.DL-1T-5861, his allegations being that the accident
occurred due to negligence on the part of the first appellant, she being
the driver of vehicle no.DL-4C-AE1104, such vehicle moving ahead
of the taxi at the time of the accident. The contention of the appellants
is that it was the taxi driver (first respondent) who was negligent as his
vehicle had hit the car of the appellants from behind. The appellants
also submit that the impugned judgment was passed without notice.
The appellants also challenge the order dated 02.11.2016 whereby
their application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants and for the first
respondent (Amarjeet Pandit) have been heard and the Tribunal's
record perused. The learned counsel for the first respondent fairly
concedes that the claim having arisen out of Detailed Accident Report
(DAR), no claim petition having been instituted by the said party in
his own rights, there being no insurance company in the fray and
consequently there being no legal offer of any compensation by any
insurer, the normal procedure under the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal Rules, 2008, had to be strictly applied and consequently a
formal notice to show cause was required to be issued to the parties
against whom the claim was being agitated. In the present case, it is
fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal
did not issue any such show cause notice and, therefore, there has been
a breach of the fundamental principles of natural justice, the award
having been passed without notice or opportunity to contest.
4. Given the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel
for the first respondent (Amarjeet Pandit) submitted that while the
appeal may be allowed, claim proceedings before the Tribunal arising
out of the DAR may be revived and the parties may be relegated to
further proceedings before the Tribunal.
5. Ordered accordingly.
6. The appellants and the first respondent are directed to appear
before the tribunal for further proceedings on 16th August, 2017.
7. Needless to add, given the proceedings conducted thus far, the
appellants would now be deemed to have been served with show cause
notice. They shall, however, be served with copy of the DAR and the
materials submitted therewith and, thereafter, given an opportunity to
file written statement(s) before formal inquiry commences.
8. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
10. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be presently refunded
to the appellant.
11. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 19, 2017
yg/vk
