Delhi High Court
Gautam Patpatia & Anr vs Amita Rani on 20 November, 2017
$~4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1018/2016
GAUTAM PATPATIA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Bhatt, Advocate.
versus
AMITA RANI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dinesh Malik, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim petition (Suit No. 209/14) instituted by
the respondent on 09.09.2014, the liability to pay compensation has
been fastened against the appellants by the Tribunal, by judgment
dated 27.11.2015, returning a finding that the respondent had suffered
injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 14.02.2014
at about 1 PM near Gannaur Bridge within the area of District Panipat
wherein two cars had collided against each other; one being Car No.
DL-5CC-7621 (the car of the claimant) and, the other being, Car No.
DL-3C-BV-9535 (the car of the second appellant), it admittedly being
driven by the first appellant. It may be added here that the liability has
come to be placed at the door of the appellants because there was no
insurance policy taken out to cover the third party risk.
2. The prime grievance of the appellants is that they were denied
right to defend. This plea is found to be correct as the record of the
Tribunal so demonstrates by proceedings recorded on 18.02.2015.
3. The claim petition had been filed on 09.09.2014 and notice was
issued to the respondent for 16.12.2014. On 16.12.2014, the
appellants appeared, through counsel, but on the submissions of the
parties they were referred to mediation for 12.01.2015. There are no
proceedings of 12.01.2015.
4. The communication dated 10.02.2015 from the Branch In-
charge, Mediation Centre, indicates the case could not be settled and
thus, the matter was returned to the Tribunal. This communication
reflects the next date of hearing as 17.02.2015.
5. The Court Master confirms that 17.02.2015 was a Court holiday
on account of Shivratri and, thus, the matter was taken up by the
Tribunal on 18.02.2015. The Tribunal noted that the matter had
returned unsettled and immediately thereafter proceeded to strike off
the defence on the ground "no written statement had been filed".
6. In the entire record of previous proceedings there was no
direction for any written statement to be filed. It may be that by
issuing notice, the Tribunal had expected the written statement to be
filed. But then it had to be borne in mind that it had not insisted on
filing of written statement and had instead chosen to refer the parties
to mediation, a course opted by them. Against this backdrop, one
more opportunity, at least, for written statement to be filed was called
for. The striking off the defence at such initial stages has led to denial
of effective opportunity to the appellants to contest.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside.
The claim case is remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings in
accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
20.12.2017. Since the appellants seek to contest, they are directed to
file their written statement before the Tribunal on the date of first
appearance fixed as above. There shall be no further opportunity
granted. In case of default, the Tribunal will have the liberty to
proceed further in accordance with law.
8. By order dated 02.12.2016, the appellants had been directed to
deposit 50% of the awarded amount with the Tribunal within four
weeks, as a pre-condition to stay against the execution of the award
which was impugned by the present appeal. Learned counsel for the
appellants submits that compliance has been made with such
directions. Since the car in question was not insured against third
party risk, it is directed the amount thus deposited with the Tribunal
shall be retained in a fixed deposit interest bearing account and
appropriately availed by the Tribunal either for the satisfaction of the
award or for refund, as the case may be, in light of the fresh
adjudication.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
srb
