AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)
Today application(s) for stay of proceedings pending before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, are listed before this Court, however, at oral request made by learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner, the main civil writ petition(s) (CR-4236-2026 and CR-4358-2026), which are otherwise fixed for 24.08.2026, are preponed and taken on board today for hearing.
This order shall dispose of two civil revision petitions i.e. CR-4236-2026 and CR-4358-2026 as they both relate to two separate execution application(s) filed by two separate sets of claimants seeking execution of a common award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, in respect of two separate deceased persons in the same accident, wherein the objections filed by the present petitioner (owner/driver of the offending vehicle), have been dismissed vide two separate orders dated 27.04.2026 on identical grounds. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CR-4236-2026.
Present civil revision petition (CR-4236-2026) has been filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal”), vide which the objections filed by the petitioner - Varinder Kumar (owner/driver of the offending vehicle) in the execution petition have been dismissed.
Briefly, on 08.08.2004, Sh. Manish Kumar (deceased), Smt. Surjit Kaur (deceased), Smt. Harjit Kaur (deceased), Smt. Rumal Kaur (injured) along with Dharam Singh and Inderpal Singh and some other persons were going from ‘Kamani’ Chowk, Yamuna Nagar to Ambala by sitting in rear portion of truck bearing registration No. HYD-6512. The truck was loaded with iron rods and some other iron material, and the same was being driven by present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) in a rash and negligent manner. At about 12.00 midnight, when the truck reached within the area of village Kharu Khera, the same hit against wall of a bridge by going on the wrong side of the road and then the truck turned turtle and the iron rods had fallen on the persons sitting in the rear portion of the truck. All the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt, where Smt. Harjit Kaur, Smt. Surjit Kaur and Sh. Manish Kumar were declared dead.
Inderpal Singh - respondent No.2 in the present civil revision petition (CR-4236-2026), filed a claim petition (MACT Case No.169, instituted on 10.11.2004), in respect of deceased - Harjit Kaur. In the said claim petition, the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) was impleaded as respondent No.1, whereas The Oriental Insurance Company Limited was impleaded as respondent No.2.
Similarly, another claim petition was filed by Dharam Singh etc. regarding deceased Surjit Kaur, wherein also the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) was impleaded as respondent No.1, and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited was impleaded as respondent No.2.
It is a matter of record that the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) being the driver and owner of the offending truck appeared and contested the claim of the claimants by filing his written statement(s). Similarly, Insurance Company also contested the claim of the claimants.
From the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
“1)Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. HYD-6512 by respondent No.1 Varinder Kumar causing death of Manish Kumar, Smt. Surjit Kaur, Smt. Harjit Kaur and injuries to Smt. Rumal Kaur?OPP.
2)If issue no. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
3)Whether respondent No. 2- insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement?OPR-2.
4)Relief.”
Therafter, the parties led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues.
All the claim petitions came to be decided by the learned Tribunal, vide common award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2), whereunder, in the claim petition filed by Inderpal Singh, total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded and in the claim petition filed by Dharam Singh etc., the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,000/-.
The learned Tribunal further held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by Varinder Kumar (present petitioner).
It was further held that the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) was not having license to drive heavy transport vehicle, which was being driven by him at the time of accident.
The plea of the Insurance Company that, the offending truck was being driven by present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) carrying passengers for fare, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation; did not find favour with the learned Tribunal, accordingly, the learned Tribunal held the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) being the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle along with the Insurance Company, to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. On the compensation amount, the learned Tribunal further granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
It appears that the aforesaid common award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Tribunal, was challenged by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited by filing three separate appeals before this Hon’ble High Court, wherein FAO-3949-2006 was filed against Dharam Singh etc., wherein FAO-3950-2026 was filed against Inderpal Singh and others.
It appears that the aforesaid appeals filed by the Insurance Company were dismissed qua the claimants vide two separate orders dated 28.08.2006, however, notice was issued to the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
In all the aforementioned appeals filed by Insurance Company before this Court, the service was complete and Sh.Gaurav Sethi, Advocate appeared for the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) on 08.03.2007 and the matter was adjourned to 11.05.2007.
On 11.05.2007, one Sh. Chander Shekhar, Advocate appeared for Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate and sought time to argue the matter, accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2007. Then again on request of Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate the matter was adjourned for arguments to 05.11.2007. Similar request on 05.11.2007 was made and the matter was adjourned to 25.02.2008. Then again, it was adjourned to 12.05.2008 on the request of Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate for present petitioner (Varinder Kumar).
It transpires that the aforesaid appeals filed by the Insurance Company came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2008, wherein also the petitioner was represented by Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate.
Subsequently, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Insurance Company came up for hearing on 22.07.2010, when the same were allowed and the award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) was set aside against Insurance Company, by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure P-4).
It appears that the respective claimants had also filed their independent appeals seeking enhancement of compensation i.e. FAO-5234-2006 filed by Inderpal Singh and FAO-5235-2006 field by Dharam Singh and others, which came to be decided by this Court vide separate order(s) dated 18.10.2024. In case of Inderpal Singh the compensation was enhanced by Rs.5,09,000/-, whereas in case of Dharam Singh etc., the compensation was enhanced by Rs.3,50,000/-.
It is worth noticing that in the aforesaid orders dated 18.10.2024, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with the interest with the learned Tribunal. However, applications were filed by the Insurance Company seeking modification of the said order(s) dated 18.10.2024, in the light of the fact that earlier the appeals filed by the Insurance Company had already been allowed by this Court vide common order dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure P-4); accordingly the aforesaid order(s) dated 18.10.2024 were modified by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 to the effect that the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the insured i.e. present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) in terms of order(s) dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure P-4).
It appears that in pursuance to the orders dated 18.10.2024 read with order dated 19.08.2025, the Insurance Company deposited a cheque bearing No.207519 dated 26.03.2025 before the learned Tribunal, Ambala, for an amount of Rs.13,49,620/- and simultaneously filed an execution application seeking recovery of the said amount from the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar).
In the aforesaid execution petition(s), the present petitioner (Varinder Kumar) submitted his objections, which have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-1).
Feeling dissatisfied, the present petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition(s) before this Court.
The sole argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the execution petition(s) were time barred, therefore, impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) be set aside.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.
The aforementioned facts are not disputed before this Court.
The learned Executing Court has dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner vide order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) by observing as under:-
“5.After hearing, learned counsel for the decree-holder, learned counsel for the judgment debtor / objector and perusing the case file, it is observed that by way of filing the execution petition, the DH has sought recovery of Rs.8,85,212/- + Rs.61,080/- (interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 08.04.2025 to 14.01.2026) total Rs.9,46,292/-, which was paid by it to the claimants. Earlier the claimant Dharam Singh and others had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and the said claim petition was allowed. The judgment debtor has claimed that no notice was given by Hon'ble High Court to him at the time of passing of order dated 22.07.2010. Copy of order dated 22.07.2010 made it clear that none had appeared on behalf of respondent and thereafter, order dated 22.07.2010 was passed. This fact made it clear that the respondent of that appeal has chosen not to appear before the Hon'ble High Court and now the judgment debtor cannot claim that no notice was givent to him. Thereafter, claimants had also approached Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and vide order dated 18.10.2024 the appeal filed by claimants Dharam Singh and others was allowed and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.4,70,400/-. The decree holder had also moved an application under 151 of CPC for modification of the judgment dated 18.10.2024 and vide order dated 19.08.2025, the insurance company was held entitled to recover compensation amount from insured in terms of order dated 22.07.2010. Thereafter, present execution petition was filed by insurance company against insured i.e. Varinder Kumar. The JD / respondent has taken objections that the execution petition is hopelessly time barred as the same has not been filed within a period of 12 years from 22.07.2010. The appeal is in continuation of petition / suit. Earlier the appeal of the claimants was decided by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 18.10.2024 and thereafter miscellaneous application under Section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of insurance company was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2025 and thereafter the execution petition in order to recover the amount was filed. In these circumstances, the execution petition /application is not time barred.
6.Keeping in view all the above facts, I do not find any merit in the objections filed by the judgment debtor / objector and the same are hereby dismissed.”
Here it is apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in “Ravinder Praskash Punj Vs. Sons Pvt. Ltd & ors.” 2012 (43) RCR (Civil) 903, wherein the following observations were made:-
“28.Under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, period of limitation for filing of an execution petition of a decree begins on the date on which it becomes enforceable. It is well settled that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding and the original decree merges in the appellate decree. When an appeal is preferred from an original decree, the decree would also become enforceable after dismissal of the same, and it is immaterial that there was no order staying the execution of the decree and that the decree-holder could execute the decree even during pendency of the appeal. This merger of the original decree into the appellate decree takes place irrespective of the fact that the appellate court affirms, modifies or reverses the lower court's decree. [See Posani Ramachandraiah v. Daggupati Seshamma, AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 342; S. Kharak Singh v. Harbhajan Singh,; Ramji Dass v. Tilak Raj, ; Syed Abdul Rauf v. Nurul Hussain & Ors., AIR 1992 Rajasthan 3; Hari Singh v. Harbhajan Singh, AIR 2001 P&H 108; Chandi Prasad & Ors. v. Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Hapur & Ors., AIR 2001 Allahabad 229; Indradeo Sah v. Ram Naresh Sah & Ors., 2002 (1) PLJR 423; Nawal Kishore Patel v. Most. Indrapari Devi, 2002 (4) PLJR 272; Uma Shankar Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 Patna 94].
29.In Uma Shankar Sharma (supra), the Patna High Court has observed as follows:
"8.Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically provides that the time from which period of limitation begins to run is when the decree of order becomes enforceable. In a case where the decree of the Lower Courts is challenged in Second Appeal which results into a decree passed by this Court, then the decree of the Courts below merge with the judgment and decree of the Second Appeal and the decree becomes enforceable and the period of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act is to be counted from the date of the judgment in the Second appeal. Even when the appeal is dismissed on any preliminary matter or is dismissed for default, it would naturally; amount to confirmation of the judgments and degree of the Lower Courts, which would attain finality only thereafter and hence the final decision would be that of the second appellate Court and the decree of the Courts below could be legally treated as enforceable only thereafter. It would thus be absolutely immaterial that there was no order in the Second Appeal staying execution of the decree and that the decree of the Courts below could have been executed by the Decree-holder immediately after the said decree. x x x x x x x x x x
10.Furthermore, so long as there is any question sub-judice between the parties, those affected shall not be compelled to pursue the so often thorny path of execution which, if the final result is against them, may lead to any disadvantage. Nor in such case as this is the judgment-debtor prejudiced as he has indeed obtained a boon of delay which is so dear to debtors and if the judgment-debtor is virtuously inclined, there is nothing to prevent his paying what he owes into Court, specially when in this case the judgment-debtor is a welfare State".
30.The period of limitation, thus, for execution also begins from the date of the decision of the appellate court.”
Before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has failed to show as to how the execution petition filed by the Insurance Company was time barred, when the appeal(s) filed by the claimants were pending before this Court, which were finally decided vide order dated 18.10.2024 and further modified vide order dated 19.08.2025. Therefore, the award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) stood merged with orders passed by this Court and the execution petitions cannot be held to be time barred.
At this stage, another submission has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as it also includes the interest amount which has increased only on account of the fact that the Insurance Company did not pay the compensation amount to the claimants at the relevant time.
I have considered the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner as well. Evidently, the petitioner had appeared in the claim petitions and also filed his written statement(s) opposing the claim of the claimants. Concededly, the petitioner was aware of the award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Tribunal, wherein the petitioner as well as the Insurance Company were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Apparently, the petitioner did not raise any challenge to the award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Tribunal. Rather a perusal of the zimni orders attached with the present petition as Annexure P-3 would show that even in the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 02.06.2006, the petitioner was represented by his counsel Mr. Gaurav Sethi.
Further the appeals filed by the Insurance Company came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure P-4), wherein Insurance Company was absolved from paying the compensation and even the right of recovery was recognized to be subsisting with the Insurance Company.
In my considered view, once the petitioner was aware of the award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Tribunal, wherein petitioner was held jointly and severally liable along with Insurance Company to pay compensation, he cannot be permitted to raise the plea that since the Insurance Company did not pay the amount at the relevant time, therefore, he is not liable to pay the interest component; moreso, when the petitioner never raised any challenge to the award dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure P-2).
In view of the above, I see no merit in the present civil revision petition(s) and the same are accordingly dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.