High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
RAJENDRA KUMAR & ANR v VIRENDRA SINGH & ANR - CMA Case No. 05533 of 2006  RD-RJ 3661 (30 July 2007)
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.5533/2006(DRJ)
(Rajendra Kumar & anr. Vs. Virendra Singh & anr.)
Date of Order :: 30th July 2007.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Ramesh Purohit for the appellant
This appeal preferred by the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in accident against the award dated 20.04.2006 continues to suffer from the major defect that proof of deposit of the amount as required by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has not been filed. Considering the circumstances of the case, this Court had passed the following order on 02.03.2007:-
"This appeal preferred by the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in accident against the award dated 20.04.2006 suffers from a major defect that the same is not accompanied by the proof of deposit of amount as required by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
By the award impugned, the Tribunal has proceeded to exonerate the insurer of its liability with the finding that the victims were the passengers in a goods vehicle.
Learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Purohit appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants shall comply with the requirements of the statute and deposit 50% of the award amount positively on before 08.03.2007.
Perusal of the award in question shows that while the Tribunal has proceeded to exonerate the insurer of its liability, has directed the insurer to make payment within a month and that is to be released to the claimant only after taking solvent security from the vehicle owner, the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to state if the appellants have furnished the requisite security before the Tribunal or not. While it shall be required of the appellants to deposit 50% of the award amount as stated by the learned counsel on or before 08.03.2007; but at the same time, it shall also be required of the appellants to furnish security if it has not been furnished till now on or before that date before the Tribunal.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and for the delay having been caused by the appellants in compliance of the requirements of the statute and for removal of the defects in this appeal, it appears appropriate to impose costs upon the appellants but looking to the assurance made on behalf of the appellants by the learned counsel that the requirements of the statute shall be carried out positively on or before 08.03.2007, only Rs.200/- costs is imposed that shall be deposited by the appellants within ten days from today with the State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
If the requirements of this order are carried out and the necessary proofs of deposit, of furnishing security and of making payment of costs are filed on or before 13.03.2007, the appeal may be registered and be placed for admission on 16.03.2007; in the other event it be placed for appropriate orders on 16.03.2007."
It has yet been reported that the appellants have not furnished proof of any deposit whether towards award amount or even towards costs. Even after more than four months of passing of the order dated 02.03.2007, the appellants have failed to show if the requirements thereof have been carried out.
For the failure of the appellants to make compliance of the requirements of statute, this appeal remains fundamentally incompetent and cannot be proceeded further. The appellants have further failed to show compliance of the requirements of the order dated 02.03.2007 passed by this Court and, thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The amount of costs imposed by this Court shall also be recovered by the Tribunal from the appellants alongwith the award amount; and shall be remitted to the State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.