NARINDER KUMAR Vs. MANI DEVI
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)An important point has been raised in this case. The appellant says that he is not going to deposit the amount as directed by this Court under sub -rule (3) of rule I of Order 41. He further contends that the court cannot do anything if sub -rule (3), is not complied with. In other words, sub -rule (3), which has been added by the Parliament to rule, is of no consequence and an appellant can flout the orders of the Court with impunity.
(2.)The facts are simple. The appellant was owner of truck No. HIM -9585. This truck was involved in an accident on 13.10.1976 in which Tulsi Ram and Moti Ram, two real brothers, died. Applications under section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation were filed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 46 000 and Rs. 24,000 respectively in the two petitions alongwith interest. This amount has been awarded against the owner of the truck as well as against its driver. The present appellant in the two appeals - F.A.O. Nos. 53 and 54 of 1981 is the owner of the truck.
(3.)The appeals came up for admission before me on l6th July, 1981. I found that the appellant has not deposited the amount in question. I directed the appellant to deposit the amount within one month in terms of sub -rule (3) of rule 1 of Order 41. The appeals thereafter came up before me on 27th August, 1981. On that day the appellant moved an application praying that he should be permitted to furnish security instead of depositing the amount. It was admitted that the truck in question had since been sold away by the appellant. It was stated that the appellant is a contractor and is working with the Himachal Pradesh Public Works .Department. Looking into the circumstances disclosed to me, I refused to change my previous order and dismissed the application. I had come to the conclusion that the application was merely a device by the appellant to disobey the direction given to him to deposit this amount. However, the appellant was given three weeks more time to deposit the amount and matter was adjourned to 30th September, 1981.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.