Surinder Thakur Vs Rajesh Bharti and Others

¶1

2026:HHC:23567

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 688 of 2025

¶4

Date of decision : 17.06.2026.

¶5

Surinder Thakur ...Petitioner. Versus Rajesh Bharti & others ...Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge .

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pankaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 4 (a) to 4 (c). Ms. Simran Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶9

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

¶10

The instant petition arises out of order as passed by the learned MACT-III, Shimla, dated 10.07.2025, whereby the objections, as preferred by the present petitioner were dismissed and a warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued against him.

¶11

The facts of the case are that the claimants/ respondents filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidental Claim Tribunal-III, Shimla for grant of compensation on account of death of Sh. Mast Ram. The learned MACT-III,

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

-2-

¶14

Shimla allowed the claim petition and passed an award of Rs. 14,92,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. The liability to pay the compensation amount was fastened upon the owner and the driver of the vehicle i.e. present petitioner and respondent No.6.

¶15

Against the award as passed by the learned MACTIII Shimla, the JD/owner namely Sandeep Kumar preferred FAO No. 243 of 2023 before this Court. In the said appeal, this Court vide its order dated 27.09.2023 stayed the operation of impugned award, subject to the deposit of entire awarded amount within six weeks from the date of passing the order dated 27.09.2023.

¶16

On 27.06.2025, learned counsel for the decree holder made a statement that the owner/JD has not deposited the awarded amount except Rs. 25,000/-.

¶17

The JDs i.e. driver and owner of the vehicle preferred the objections before the learned MACT-III, Shimla by raising various objections. The learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2025, issued the warrant of attachment against the JDs for 08.08.2025.

¶18

Feeling dissatisfied, the driver of the vehicle has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

-3-

¶20

The owner of the vehicle has separately preferred FAO No. 243 of 2023, which is still pending before this Court.

¶21

It is contended by the learned counsel for the JD/ petitioner that the impugned order as passed by the learned MACT-III/Executing Court is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned MACT-III, Shimla has wrongly passed the impugned order. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

¶23

It is an admitted fact that the claimants/ respondents preferred a claim petition on account of death of Sh. Mast Ram. The learned MACT-III, Shimla passed the award in favour of the claimants by awarding them Rs. 14,92,500/along with interest. It is admitted by the respective parties that the liability to pay the compensation amount was fastened upon the driver and the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation.

¶24

The owner/JD had preferred FAO No. 243 of 2023 before this Court and the same was admitted on 27.09.2023,

¶25

-4-

¶26

when in CMPST No. 20346 of 2023, the following order was passed:-

¶27

“Be registered. This application is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the entire award amount, with upto-date interest thereon, being deposited by the applicant/appellant with the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from today, the operation of the award under challenge shall remain stayed.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the decree holder made a statement on 27.06.2025 that the entire awarded amount except Rs. 25,000/- has not been deposited either before this Court or before the Tribunal even till today. Learned counsel for the respondent/owner has fairly conceded that the awarded amount has not been deposited as per directions of this Court.

¶29

Once the JD/owner did not deposited the award amount along with upto date interest either before this Court or before the learned MACT, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that it can be safely said that there is no stay in existence against the operation of the impugned award dated 07.07.2022. The order as passed by the learned MACT whereby order of attachment has been issued against the JDs/petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity. The claimants filed the claim petition on account of the death of Sh. Mast Ram for grant of compensation and despite the fact

¶30

-5-

¶31

that the award was passed on 07.07.2022 and thereafter despite passing of more than four years, the JDs has prolonged the matter unnecessarily in order to deprive the claimants from the fruits of the award as passed by the learned MACT.

¶32

In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order as passed by the learned MACT-III/Executing Court, Shimla. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶34

17^th June, 2026. (kck)

Surinder Thakur v. Rajesh Bharti and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Thakur v. Rajesh Bharti and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NHAI Vs Devi Ram and Another

Prem Kumar Vs Tek Chand

Deepak Kumar Vs Nipun Jindal

NHAI Vs Diksha and Others

Indira Sharma Vs State of Hp through Principal Secretary Public Work, to the Govt of H.P. and others

Naresh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs Santosh Kumar