MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM 4082/2010 Page 1 of 4 UNREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM No.4082/2010 COL.(RETD.) GULVIR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.T. Srinivasan and Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocates versus DAYA SHANKAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate For R-1. % Date of Decision : February 09, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? J U D G M E N T (ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL, J. This appeal has been filed with a prayer of setting aside the interim award dated 3.2.2010 passed in MACT No.260/2009 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi. MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM 4082/2010 Page 2 of 4 The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal has passed the interim award dated 03.02.10 without passing any order on the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the appellant for deletion of his name from the array of parties nor afforded any opportunity to adduce his evidence before awarding interim compensation. 2. By an order dated March 4, 2010, notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents No.2 and 3. Notice was also issued to the Station House Officer, P.S. Keshav Puram, Delhi to attend this court alongwith case file of FIR No.183/2008 dated 3rd August, 2008 to explain whether the driver and owner of the offending vehicle had been prosecuted under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further directed that the SHO shall also investigate as to who was the real owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. 3. The status report has been filed by the SHO, which is placed on record. According to this report, the investigations revealed that the registered owner of vehicle No. DL 9C 4671 is the appellant as per the records of the State Transport Department, South West Zone, MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM 4082/2010 Page 3 of 4 New Delhi. He sold the vehicle to Shri Lalit Kumar in the year 2005 and handed over all the original documents to him. The vehicle was thereafter sold to Shri Veer Singh and further to Shri Chetan Sharma. Shri Chetan Sharma in reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act stated that his friend Sudesh Kumar, son of Satpal Gupta, resident of WZ-573B, Gali No.14, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi was driving the Maruti Car No. DL 9C 4671 at the time of the accident. Sudesh Kumar was charge-sheeted under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted before the Trial Court. A Kalandara under Section 146/196 Motor Vehicle Act was prepared against the appellant, Col. (Retd.) Gulvir Singh, the registered owner of the offending vehicle No. DL 9C 4671 and submitted before the Trial Court. 4. In view of the aforesaid, in my view, the trial court has rightly held that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay interim compensation to the petitioner. The interim award dated 3rd February, 2010 is accordingly upheld. In case, however, at the time of the passing of the final award, respondent No.2 is not held liable to pay the same, he MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM 4082/2010 Page 4 of 4 shall be entitled to reimbursement of the amount of the interim award paid by him from the actual owner of the offending vehicle. With the aforesaid observations, MAC.APP. 130/2010 and CM No.4082/2010 stand disposed of. Parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 14.03.2010. Records be sent back to the Trial Court. REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) February 09, 2011 sk