Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ... on 18 September, 2018
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: September 18, 2018
+ CM(M) 1443/2017 & CM 46324/2017
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Advocate
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr. Mirza
Amir Baig, Advocate for respondent-DTC
Mr. Vaseem M., Advocate for respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
%
CM(M) 1443/2017 & CMs 46324-25/2017 & CM 14621/2018
Impugned order of 19th July, 2017 permits petitioner to pay
₹1,00,000/- to respondent-DTC by way of a cheque towards the amount
paid by respondent-DTC while seeking release of the bus in question on
superdari. Petitioner is aggrieved by noting on the application for
compromise regarding respondent-DTC depositing in the Court of
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate ₹1,00,000/- and of its withdrawal by
Claimant. Lok Adalat's Award of 24th October, 2010 is on record as
(AnnexureA-3 colly.) and there is no reference in it regarding refund of
₹1,00,000/- to respondent-DTC.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that noting on the application
for the compromise, is unauthorised as the said noting does not bear the
signatures of anybody and that petitioner had never undertaken to refund the
superdari amount of ₹1,00,000/- to respondent-DTC. It is pointed out that
from the Lok Adalat Award, it is quite clear that there is no reference to the
refund of ₹1,00,000/- to respondent-DTC, who had chosen not to participate
in the Lok Adalat proceeding despite being the main party.
Learned counsel for respondent-DTC supports the impugned order
and submits that the remedy before the petitioner is to approach the
concerned Tribunal or to file an appeal against the Lok Adalat Award. In
rebuttal, petitioner's counsel submits that the Lok Adalat Award of
₹7,30,000/- has been already satisfied by petitioner and so, there is no
question of filing appeal against it. It is further submitted by counsel for
petitioner that the amount of ₹1,00,000/- has already been paid to
respondent-DTC in terms of the impugned order.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on
record, I find that Lok Adalat's Award (Annexure A-3 colly.) is silent on the
aspect of refund of ₹1,00,000/- to respondent-DTC. The noting on the
application for recording of compromise regarding refund of ₹1,00,000/- by
petitioner to respondent-DTC, is not signed by anyone. It is the case of
respondent-DTC that the amount of ₹1,00,000/- deposited by them, at the
time of release of vehicle in question of superdari, has been withdrawn by
the claimants. Although, petitioner cannot be called upon to pay amount of
₹1,00,000/- to respondent-DTC, but the said amount has been already paid
by petitioner to first respondent in terms of the impugned order, and so, it is
deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition, while refraining to interfere
with impugned order but with liberty to petitioner to recover the aforesaid
payment of ₹1,00,000/- from the claimants as it has been paid to them, over
and above the settled amount of ₹7,30,000/-.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
v
