Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 773 (HP)

Shukla Malhotra v. Ashwani Kumar

2014-06-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) In terms of order dated 6.6.2014, Mr. J. K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General has filed photocopy of FIR No. 23 of 2003 of police Station Theog, Shimla, along with status report, taken on record and made part of the file. 2. It appears that police was conducting investigation in FIR No. 40 of 2003, dated 4.2.2003, police station Sadar District Shimla under Section 406 Indian Penal Code and during the investigation, police had seized Maruti vehicle bearing registration No. PB-S-0828, which was being driven by HHC Mehar Chand at the relevant point of time. The status report and copy of FIR do disclose that the vehicle was seized and was in custody of the police in FIR No. 40 of 2003, police station Sadar, District Shimla. 3. The question is who was in possession of the vehicle and who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. According to the claimants, the vehicle was being driven by police official, particularly respondent No. 2 Mehar Chand at the time of the accident being seized property in the said FIR. However, the Tribunal has not determined the said issue. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants stated at the Bar that the State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and Investigating officer, namely, ASI Baldev Singh, Police station Baij Nath District Kangra, H.P., who was holding post of Head Constable at the relevant point of time, may be ordered to be arrayed as party respondents in the petition. 4. Keeping in view the averments contained in the claim petition and the contents of the FIRs and status report, it appears that the State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and ASI Baldev Singh are necessary parties. As such I deem it proper to exercise powers under Order 41 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and array them as party respondents in the appeal and claim petition. They shall figure as respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively. 5. The Registry to make necessary corrections in the cause title. As such I deem it proper to exercise powers under Order 41 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and array them as party respondents in the appeal and claim petition. They shall figure as respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively. 5. The Registry to make necessary corrections in the cause title. At this stage, the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants stated at the Bar that the judgment may be set aside and the case be remanded to the Tribunal below and leave may be granted to file amended petition in order to seek relief against the State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and against the aforesaid Investigating Officer also. His statement is taken on record. 6. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the purpose for grant of compensation, I deem it proper to grant leave also. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment is set aside and the claim petition is remanded. The parties present are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal below on 1st July, 2014. The claimant to file the amended claim petition by or before 1st July, 2014. 8. The Tribunal to issue notice to the newly arrayed respondents. 9. The appeal stands disposed of along with pending applications, if any. 10. Send down the record alongwith copy of this judgment, forthwith.