Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2006 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2006 Date of decision: 31.03.2009. Malkeet Singh ...Petiitioner Versus Vijay Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Maharaj Baksh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.7 ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner is in revision against both the impugned orders dated 4.9.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). Vide the former, the petitioner's plea (for the stay of further proceedings on an averment that he had been wrongly proceeded against and that he was not the judgment debtor in that case) was negatived. The plea in the context otherwise was that he is not a son of Bant Singh but a son of Balwant Singh; whereas the impugned award by the Tribunal had been passed against his name sake but with the above indicated different parentage. In the latter application, the petitioner's plea (for initiation Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2006 -2- ***** of contempt proceedings against the respondent-decree holder on the above allegations) was negatived. It would be apparent from the presentation on behalf of the petitioner made at the time of motion hearing that he is not the same person against whom the award had been passed. The plea raised by the petitioner would be apparent from the following order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Mahesh Grover, J.) on 8.9.2008:- “The petitioner has denied the liability to satisfy the award. The executing Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner, whose name is Malkiat Singh son of Bant Singh,has sought to deny the liability on the ground that as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the amount could not be recovered from him. Appeal qua him has been dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 29.10.2004 on the strength of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 in the following terms:- “The learned counsel appearing for claimant- respondent nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that they are not seeking any relief against the present appellant, namely Malkiat Singh son of Balwant Singh in the Executing Court and that they are seeking relief only against Maninder Singh son of Deewan Singh and Malkiat Singh son of Bant Singh being the Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2006 -3- ***** owner of offending vehicles. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent nos. l to 4, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. Ordered accordingly. Dismissed as withdrawn”. The Executing Court, however, came to the conclusion that Malkiat singh son of Bant Singh and Malkiat Singh son of Balwant Singh are one and the same person and that the award is being frustrated by the petitioner by taking up pleas which are fraudulent in nature. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle as mentioned in the FIR was a jeep bearing No. PYF 9407 whereas the vehicle belonging to the petitioner is HYF 9407 and this vehicle is insured and in the eventuality of it being held that this vehicle was involved in the accident, the same stood insured and therefore, the insurance company ought to satisfy the award rather than the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order,I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2006 -4- ***** justice to direct the petitioner to deposit another sum of Rs.12,500/- within four weeks from today. The said amount shall be disbursed to the respondent-claimant forthwith. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda is directed to get a report from the S.H.O. Of the village/area where the petitioner is residing as to whether Malkiat Singh son of Bant Singh and Malkiat Singh son of Balwant are one and the same person and submit the same to this Court within four weeks.” The matter was got enquired into and the finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, is that the Malkeet Singh son of Bant Singh and Malkeet Singh son of Balwant Singh is one and the same person. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court to fault that finding on any valid score. In that view of things, the statement made by the respondents-claimants before the Executing Court that they are not seeking any relief against Malkeet Singh son of Balwant Singh and that they are seeking relief against Malkeet Singh son of Bant Singh, who is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the offending vehicle was under insurance cover and a direction should be issued to the respondent/claimant to the effect that the recovery should be made Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2006 -5- ***** from the insurer in the first instance. In view of the conceded position that the Tribunal had recorded a finding of joint and several liability, the discretion in the relevant behalf has to be exercised by the respondents-claimants. It is for them to decide whether they would like to recover the amount firstly from the insurer or the registered owner. No direction in the relevant behalf can be issued by this Court. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 31, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge