Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
INDERJIT PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RAJENDER MOHAN SHARMA - Respondent
RSA No. 257 of 2016
Decided on : 16-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. G.K. Mishra, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party's admission of signing documents without reading their contents, coupled with other evidence, can establish liability in a civil suit.
Headnote:
Transfer of Possession - Recovery of Monies - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of monies from the appellant, claiming that the appellant was in possession of a bus that met with an accident, resulting in the death of a scooter driver. The respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and sought recovery from the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, holding that the appellant had signed the documents without reading their contents and had undertaken the liability of taking over possession of the bus. The appellate court affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the appellant was liable to reimburse the respondent for the payment made to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the bus, the liability of the appellant, and the enforceability of the agreement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's admission of signing the documents without reading their contents, coupled with the agreement and affidavit, established his liability to reimburse the respondent. The court also emphasized the joint action of defense by the appellant and the respondent in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) proceedings.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 19.5.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 6.6.2016; by which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of monies has been decreed for Rs.2,01,650/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum.
2. The subject suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff pleading that he was the owner of a bus bearing registration no.DEP-6967 and which was transferred to the appellant/defendant in terms of the documentation Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. Possession of the bus was also delivered to the appellant/defendant under these documents dated 12.12.1985. It is further pleaded in the plaint that while the bus was under the control and possession of the appellant/defendant being driven through his agent Sh. Nirmal Singh, the same met with an accident on 30.9.1986 with a two wheeler scooter bearing registration no.DEJ-7599 resulting in the death of the scooter driver Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta. As a result of the death of Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta in the accident, the legal heirs of Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and in which proceedings the respondent/plaintiff under a compromise paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Raghubir Parshad Gupta. It is this amount which is claimed in the present suit from the appellant/defendant.
3. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he was not the registered owner of the bus nor possession of the bus was ever given to the appellant/defendant. Appellant/defendant, however, admitted his signatures on the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 but only said that he had signed the same without reading its contents. It was also contended by the appellant/defendant that he was not in possession of the subject bus when the accident occurred and also that he had no concern with the driver Sh. Nirmal Singh who was driving the bus on the date of the accident. Suit was accordingly prayed to be dismissed as respondent/plaintiff was the registered owner of the bus.
4. The courts below have referred to the contents of agreement Ex.PW1/1 and affidavit Ex.PW1/3 and which specifically state that the possession of the bus was transferred to the appellant/defendant and who had also agreed by the affidavit Ex.PW1/3 to indemnify the respondent/plaintiff and therefore appellant/defendant is liable. The documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 admittedly were signed by appellant/defendant. These relevant aspects are dealt with by the first appellate court in paragraphs 7 to 17 and 21 of its judgment and which read as under:-
“7. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.2,80,300/- from the appellant/defendant on the ground that plaintiff/respondent has made the payment of claim amount awarded by Ld. MACT in the claim petition No.203/86 in which appellant and respondent both were party. The Ld. MACT vide order dt.19.3.1987 had directed the respondent/owner of the vehicle to pay balance of Rs.58,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. on 23.4.2005 during the execution proceedings, the respondent had compromised the matter with the claimant for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as full and final settlement of the claim decreed against him. The respondent had claimed the recovery of the said amount Rs.2,80,300/- alongwith interest from the appellant on the ground that the respondent had already sold the bus in question to him vide deed of agreement dt.12.10.1985 and at the time of accident the bus was being driven by driver Nirmal Singh employed by appellant. The Ld. Trial court after appreciating the evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that signature on the deed of agreement and other documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 has been admitted by the appellant stating that he had signed the said documents without reading its contents.
