1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Roshan Lal Ahuja Vs. Oriental insurance Co. & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6337/2008 Date of Order : : 28/08/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Gurvinder Singh, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief:- “(i) Considering the above narrated facts, legal position and by placing the judicial pronouncements it is most graciously prayed to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature there of quashing or set aside order passed by Hon'ble MACT, Bikaner dated 30.07.05 where by recovery proceeding is launched against the petitioner. Annex 'G'. (ii) That as consequential of quashing the order of 2 MACT Bikaner Dated 30.07.05 Annex 'G' Recovery Warrant as Annexure 'H' and order of the Tehsildar (Revenue) Annexure'I' be quashed. (iii) That as the admission made by the proxy counsel across the bar is not a valid admission and can not be accepted as admission of the party hence the same may please be struck of the order dated 01.09.2003 Annex 'E'. (iv) That as the true intent in judgment dated 01.09.2003 was that the Insurance company will be allowed to prove the breach of conditions of policy by cogent evidence before proper forum of adjudication hence the same please be interpreted in the order dated 01.09.2003 and direction be passed accordingly to Hon'ble MACT Bikaner. (v) That any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. (vi) That the cost for this writ petition be provided by respondent.” It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not bound by an admission made by counsel representing the petitioner before this Court in S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.239/2003 in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt.Khatun & Others decided on 1st 3 September, 2003. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Krishnanand Govindanand Vs. M/s M.D.Oswal Hosiery (Regd.), AIR 2002 SC 1162 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the question as to whether the statement made by the learned counsel for the party across the Bar be treated as admission to the party, held as under:- “Having regard to the requirements of Section 18 of the Evidence Act, on the facts of this case, in our view, the aforementioned statement of the counsel of the respondent cannot be accepted as an admission so as to bind the respondent.” The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent Smt.Khatun and Others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act” hereinafter) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner being Motor Accident Claim Case No.171/1999 and in the said claim petition, the petitioner was impleaded as non-applicant No.2 as a owner of the vehicle bearing truck No.RNF 377. Apart from the petitioner, the driver of the vehicle Raju Ram @ Rajkumar and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. were impleaded as non-applicants. The other parties were also impleaded being driver, owner and insurer of the other truck bearing No.GJ 12U-5125 involved in 4 the said accident. By judgment and award dated 8th May, 2002, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner passed the award in favour of the claimants therein. That award came to be challenged by the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. before this Court by way of filing S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.239/2003. The appeal came to be decided by judgment dated 1st September, 2003 modifying the award dated 8th May, 2002 to the extent that in the event of appellant, therein, paying any amount under the impugned award to the claimants, the appellant would be entitled to recover back the amount from the owner, the petitioner herein. According, to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order came to be challenged by way of Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Civil) No.210/2003 and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Roshan Lal by judgment and order dated 7.1.2004. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner as modified by this Court was sought to be executed under Section 174 of the MV Act and in that proceedings, the warrant of attachment for recovery of the amount of award has been issued against the petitioner and that order has been challenged by the petitioner herein. In my view, the order under challenge is a 5 consequential order of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner as modified by the learned Single Judge, and the order of learned Single Judge came to be confirmed by the Division Bench while dismissing the Special Appeal and therefore, calls for no interference. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition and is, therefore, dismissed summarily . No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK 6 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.11131/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6337/2008 Date of Order : : 28/08/2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Gurvinder Singh, for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK