Delhi High Court
M/S Eicher Motors Ltd vs Nirdesh Kumar @ Nirdesh & Ors. on 9 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: October 09, 2018
+ CM(M) 673/2016 & CM 24772/2016
M/S EICHER MOTORS LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri and Mr. Ajay
Sharma, Advocates
versus
NIRDESH KUMAR @ NIRDESH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Samaksh Goyal, Advocate for
respondent-GNCTD
S.I. Naveen, P.S.Khanjawala
Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for respondent No.
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 7th April, 2016 (Annexure- A) impleads
petitioner as presumed owner of the tractor involved in the accident,
which took place way back on 10th May, 2009. Petitioner had filed an
application for deletion of its name from the array of parties, which
stands dismissed vide impugned order of 28th May, 2016. The impugned
order calls upon petitioner to file its reply mentioning as to whom the said
tractor was sold.
2. The challenge to the impugned orders of 7 th April, 2016 and 28th
May, 2016 by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that the
tractor in question was sold way back in the year 1990 and the record to
show as to whom it was sold, is not available. Attention of this Court is
drawn to Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to point out that
petitioner does not come within the definition of 'owner' in Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. So, it is submitted that the impugned orders deserve
to be set aside.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Bal Krishan @
Babli supports the impugned orders and seeks dismissal of this petition.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders and the definition
of 'owner' as given in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I find that as per
status report of 11th April, 2017 placed on record by the State, the
concerned Regional Transport Authority has given a report that the record
regarding Registration Certificate of this tractor is not available as it has
been burnt in an accidental fire. It is matter of record that second
respondent-Bal Krishan had produced the tractor in question before the
local police. It is the case of second respondent that his goods were being
transported in the tractor in question and after the accident, the tractor
was abandoned by driver of tractor and so, in this background, second
respondent had produced the tractor in question before the local police.
5. During the course of hearing, it was brought to notice of this Court
by petitioner's counsel that driver of tractor in question had expired in
some other accident. Be that as it may. It is for the second respondent to
show before the Tribunal as to under what circumstances second
respondent had produced the tractor in question before the local police.
In any case, petitioner's impleadment is wholly unjustified in view of
Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Impugned orders are set
aside to the extent they implead petitioner as deemed owner of the tractor
in question and seek reply from petitioner.
6. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 09, 2018
v
