Delhi High Court
Bimla vs Santosh & Ors. on 8 November, 2017
$~R-438
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 1173/2011
BIMLA ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
SANTOSH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kavita Tyagi for Mr.
Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 05.05.2006, accident claim case (suit no. 517/2008) was
instituted by the first respondent (claimant) seeking compensation on
the ground that on 08.02.2006, she had suffered injuries upon being hit
by maruti car bearing registration no. DBG 4152 (the car) statedly
driven by the second respondent. She impleaded the appellant as the
third respondent on the ground she was the owner of the car on the
date of accident. During the course of inquiry, the appellant denied
having any connection with the car claiming that she had already sold
it for consideration on 03.10.2003 to one Surinder Lal, son of Lakhi
Ram, Rangpuri. Evidence was led by her by examining herself as
R3W1 on the strength of her affidavit (R3W1/A).
2. The tribunal, by judgment dated 23.07.2011, however, rejected
the above said plea and held that the appellant along with the driver
were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
3. The appeal at hand has challenged the above finding reiterating
that the vehicle having been sold for consideration, the liability could
not have been fastened against the appellant.
4. The appeal was put in the category of 'regulars', by order dated
14.01.2016. When it is called out, there is no appearance on behalf of
the appellant. The matter has been heard with the assistance of the
claimant through counsel and by perusal of the record.
5. This Court is of the view that the reasons set out by the tribunal
rejecting the contention of the appellant do not call for any
interference. The appellant had relied on delivery receipt (Ex.PW-
1/A) purporting to show the delivery of the car to one Surinder Lal,
son of Lakhi Ram. Concededly, there was no intimation given of such
sale to the transport authority. Even if such statutory formality was to
be ignored, reliance on document (mark RW1/C) as being an
intimation, is found to be misplaced. It seems to be a document which
is addressed by the appellant to no particular authority and, therefore,
is more in the nature of self-serving. Curiously, the appellant also
stated that even Surinder Lal, son of Lakhi Ram had sold the vehicle
further for consideration to Raj Kumar. It is not explained by her as to
how she would be privy to such further transaction or document
pertaining thereto. The fact remains that she made no efforts to call in
Surinder Lal to affirm the transfer of the vehicle to his control.
6. In above facts and circumstances, the appeal is found devoid of
substance and is dismissed.
7. By order dated 23.12.2011, the appellant was directed to deposit
50% of the awarded amount with upto date interest with the Registrar
General. By subsequent order dated 28.09.2012, Rs. 1,00,000/- out of
such deposit was permitted to be released to the claimant. The
balance lying in deposit with accrued interest shall also be released to
the claimant in terms of the impugned judgment. For the remainder,
the claimant will have the liberty to take out appropriate execution
proceedings.
8. The statutory deposit that would have been made is forfeited as
costs in favour of the claimant.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 08, 2017
nk
