United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rekha Devi & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 12, 2015 pst

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th March, 2015 + MAC.APP. 735/2007 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.A.K. De, Advocate with Ms. Rubbeca Dias, Advocate Versus REKHA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW MAC.APP. 735/2007 & CM.APPL 17718/2007(stay) & CM.APPL 20219/2014(for deletion of respondent no.13) 1. This appeal was preferred against the judgment/award dated 07.09.2007 of the MACT in Petition no.183/07(Old no.242/05). It is inter alia the contention of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal that though vide the impugned judgment/award, its liability for the compensation awarded had been apportioned as 15% only of the total compensation awarded, the remaining liability being of others, nevertheless the claimants / respondents no.1 to 10 have been permitted to recover the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,59,000/- from any of the parties/persons who were held liable including the appellant, with right to whichever party from whom the amount in excess of its / his / her liability has been recovered, recover the excess amount from the others held liable. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject to deposit of 15% of the award amount with the Registrar General of this Court, the operation of the impugned award was stayed. 3. The appeal has remained pending for the last eight years for service of the respondents. On 10.05.2011, it was reported by the Registrar that service of all the other respondents, except respondent no.13 Smt. Parminder Kaur, stood effected and that the appellant had failed to take steps for service of respondent no.13 by publication inspite of repeated opportunities. Accordingly the matter was put up before the Court. However, when the matter came before the Court on 26.07.2011, on the statement of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant will furnish fresh address of respondent no.13, the matter was again relegated to the Registrar for service of respondent no.13 at fresh address. The appellant, however failed to furnish any fresh address of respondent no.13 and also did not effect publication. Again, the matter was posted before the Court. Vide order dated 22.08.2014, a final opportunity was granted to the appellant to take steps for completion of service on respondent no.13 subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. However on 25.11.2014, on the statement of the counsel for the appellant before the Registrar that he intends to delete respondent no.13 from the array of respondents, the appellant was given opportunity therefor. The counsel for the appellant, on inquiry, states that the cost of Rs.10,000/- also has not been paid. CM.APPL 20219/2014 has since been filed for deletion of respondent no.13 from the array of respondents at the risk of the appellant. 4. Finding, that the appellant after procuring ex parte stay of the award, nearly eight years ago, subject to deposit of 15% of the award amount has been so delaying the matter, the counsel for the appellant has been asked to address arguments on the merits of the appeal. None appears for the respondents. A perusal of the earlier ordersheets shows that in response to the notice of the appeal issued to the remaining respondents who all are reported to be served, only the counsels for respondent no.14 i.e. Ritco Transport Company had appeared from time to time and that none of the other respondents entered appearance at any point of time. Today, none appears on behalf of respondent no.14 also. The respondents, other than respondent no.13, are thus proceeded against ex parte. 5. The only ground on which the appeal was preferred being as aforesaid, the counsel for the appellant has been heard thereon. He has contended that the liability of the appellant in the total compensation amount having been restricted to 15% of the awarded amount, there was no justification for the Tribunal to entitle the claimants to recover the entire compe