Delhi High Court
Jaspal Singh Chadha vs Tarun Sharma & Ors. on 8 November, 2017
$~R-437
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 1171/2011 & CM No. 23578/2011
JASPAL SINGH CHADHA ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
TARUN SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant concededly was the registered owner of scooter
bearing registration no. DL 9SB 3190 (the scooter) on 17.03.2003
when it came to be involved in a collision with motorcycle bearing
registration no. UP 14S 1406 (the motorcycle) in the area of Shah
Alam Bandh, near Police Picket, Delhi. The motorcycle was driven by
the first respondent (claimant). As per the claim case (petition no.
192/08) instituted on 22.09.2003, the scooter was driven by Bachhey
Singh @ Bachhan Singh. The claim case was instituted by the first
respondent (the claimant) on the grounds that the collision had taken
place due to negligent driving of the scooter by Bachhey Singh @
Bachhan Singh, the said scooter driver having died. The accident
claim case was brought against his legal heirs, they being second to
fourth respondents in the appeal.
2. The appellant came to be impleaded as a party in the course of
inquiry before the tribunal on account of he being the registered owner
of the scooter. Admittedly, he did not appear on being served with the
notice. Though he chose to send a reply by speed post, there was no
participation by him in the inquiry before the tribunal.
3. The tribunal after inquiry and on the basis of evidence led, by
its judgment dated 31.01.2009, returned a finding that the accident had
occurred resulting in injuries being suffered by the claimant due to
negligent driving of the scooter by Bachhey Singh @ Bachhan Singh.
The compensation in the total sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded and
while the legal heirs of Bachhey Singh @ Bachhan Singh were asked
to pay Rs. 25,000/-, the liability to pay the balance amount was
fastened against the appellant.
4. The appeal at hand was filed questioning the said directions on
the averments that he (the appellant) had already sold the vehicle to
one Ram Dhan Giri and, therefore, had no connection with it.
5. The appeal was put in the category of 'regulars' to be taken up
on its own turn as per order dated 19.08.2013. When it is taken up
there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant.
6. The appellant not having participated in the inquiry, there being
no just or sufficient reason for such omission, he not having offered to
adduce any evidence even at the stage of the appeal to substantiate his
plea about sale of scooter prior to the occurrence of accident, the
appeal is found devoid of substance and is dismissed.
7. By order dated 23.12.2011, the appellant had been directed to
deposit the awarded amount with upto date interest with the Registrar
General as a pre-condition to stay against execution. The amount
deposited was directed to be put in the fixed deposit receipt with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch with provision for auto-renewal. It
appears the appellant had deposited Rs. 75,000/- in terms of the said
directions. The amount deposited with accrued interest shall be
released to the claimant in terms of the impugned judgment.
8. The statutory deposit that would have been made is also
forfeited as costs in favour of the claimant.
9. The appellant shall be obliged to satisfy the award by requisite
further deposit with tribunal within 30 days failing which the claimant
may enforce by execution proceedings before the tribunal.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 08, 2017
nk
