Sachin Garg v. Baby Rukmani And ORS.

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1073/2017 & C.M. 34970/2017 SACHIN GARG ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, Advocate

Versus

BABY RUKMANI AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 04.07.2018 Impugned order of 12th July, 2017 directs petitioner, who is the owner of vehicle in question, to deposit a sum of `5,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit receipt while relying upon an order of 27th March, 2017 of this Court in W.P.(C) 8092/2016, Santosh Kumar Jha Vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner (South) (Annexure P-5).

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that direction issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') to deposit `5,00,000/- is unjustified, as aforesaid order (Annexure P-5) relates to execution proceedings whereas in the instant case, the matter is now ripe for final hearing before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurer supports the impugned order and submits that the purport of the impugned order is to ensure that the award passed is executed.

CM(M) 1073/2017

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order as well as order (Annexure P-5), I find that the Tribunal has erred in relying upon order (Annexure P-5) while passing the impugned order, as Award has not been passed, whereas order (Annexure P-5) relates to post Award period i.e. execution proceedings. Thus, direction issued to petitioner to deposit `5,00,000/- is hereby set aside.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JULY 04, 2018 r CM(M) 1073/2017