Skip to content


P.R. Thakur Vs. J.P. Tyagi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC140
AppellantP.R. Thakur
RespondentJ.P. Tyagi
Excerpt:
- - 'in the report it had been mentioned that complaints were being made to the tribunal that recovery proceedings were not taking place of judgments which had been given and naturally the survivors, who were poor people, were being put to grave grief......'in the report it had been mentioned that complaints were being made to the tribunal that recovery proceedings were not taking place of judgments which had been given and naturally the survivors, who were poor people, were being put to grave grief. he had, thereforee, asked for a report as to what steps had been taken for the recovery proceedings. but inspire of writing a number of letters and asking for report no reply had been received from the collector. what really made mr. thakur in suggesting this step was that he was of the view that the three cases before him were only the tip of the large number of pending cases and this huge pendency was evidently defeating the whole purpose of the act. we feel that the response by the collector to the enquiry made by the tribunal was.....
Judgment:

S.B. Wad, J.

1. Contempt proceedings were initiated on receipt of a report from Mr. P.R. Thakur, Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 'In the report it had been mentioned that complaints were being made to the Tribunal that recovery proceedings were not taking place of judgments which had been given and naturally the survivors, who were poor people, were being put to grave grief. He had, thereforee, asked for a report as to what steps had been taken for the recovery proceedings. But inspire of writing a number of letters and asking for report no reply had been received from the Collector. What really made Mr. Thakur in suggesting this step was that he was of the view that the three cases before him were only the tip of the large number of pending cases and this huge pendency was evidently defeating the whole purpose of the Act. We feel that the response by the Collector to the enquiry made by the Tribunal was not what it should have been considering that he was the executing agency for the Tribunal. At the initial stages in this Court, unfortunately the respondent chose to file a very detailed affidavit taking preliminary objections as to whether contempt proceedings could be taken, even taking the uncalled for posture that there are different statutes and there is an independent authority of the Collector's office and that he is not answerable to the Tribunal to justify how the action in the recovery proceedings in taking place. It was for this reason really that we had kept the matter for fuller arguments because the implications of the original reply were far too serious for the proper administration of justice, if an executing agency was permitted to take on the posture of confrontation with the Court which passed the original order. We, however, are relieved to find that the respondent Collector has now taken a stand which if taken earlier would have concluded the matter in the first instance, fie that as it may, Collector has now filed an affidavit dated 23-7-1984 in which it is stated that with a view to seek maintaining the respect and dignity of the office of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Collector, Delhi tenders this unconditional apology. He also tenders unconditional apology to this Court. In that view of the fact that the Collector has given this apology, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter and would thereforee discharge the rule.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //