CWP/1453/2014 on 28 December 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1453 of 2014. Date of decision: 28.12.2016.

Tilak Raj Sharma

.….Petitioner.

Versus

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Una and others

…..Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr.N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms.Sneh Lata, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Vipul Sharda, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

None for respondent No.6.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

When the case was taken up for hearing today, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the instant petition has virtually served its purpose and may be disposed of accordingly.

2. However, before acceding to such request, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the highhandedness and transgression of all judicial limits by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order.

3. The instant petition emanates out of proceedings initiated by the respondents-claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act which ultimately culminated into an award that has admittedly attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein was not a party to the claim petition and his only fault appears to be that he had stood surety of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

judgment debtor when truck in favour of the judgment debtor had been released on supurdari by the Criminal Court. Yet, when the award was not being executed against the principal debtor, the learned Tribunal below proceeded to attach the property of the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2013 (for short ‘impugned order’) which reads thus:- “Tilak Raj is surety of Baljeet, but he is not producing the owner Baljeet in the court despite specific directions, let the immovable property of Surety Tilak Raj bearing Khata No.255, Khatauni No.392, Khasra No.2638, 2758, 2784 of village Kotla Khurd be attached for Rs.75000/- and necessary reference be made to Collector, Una and his report be awaited for 18.10.13. Dasti summons for service of owner Baljeet if desired, be issued for the date fixed.”

4. It is not only surprising but rather shocking as to how the learned Tribunal by throwing all laws to the wind passed the impugned order. It is trite law that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must act within the four corners of the governing legislation. The rights and obligations of the parties must be found within the four corners of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal cannot transgress its limits on the basis of whims as its jurisdiction is circumscribed by the legislation.

5. Less said the better. However, since the judgment debtor has now joined the execution proceedings, this Court would leave the matter to rest here with the hope that the learned Tribunal would now proceed in accordance with law and take the execution petition to its logical conclusion without repeating the blunder which had been committed by it at an early stage.

6. I have been informed that the execution petition is pending for the last 10 years. If that be so, the learned executing Court is directed to take the same to its logical end and decide the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and in no event later than 30th June, 2017.

7. The petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), 28th December, 2016.

Judge. (krt/GR)