The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the owner and the driver to reimburse the compensation paid to the claimants, as well as the finding that the challenge to the execution proceedings was an abuse of the process of the Court.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings that have been initiated by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02, North, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Execution No.272/2020, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Kumar & Anr. against the petitioner herein, seeking enforcement of the Award dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case no.269/10/07.

2. The learned Tribunal, by way of the above Award, while awarding compensation to the claimants therein, had granted a right in the respondent no.1 herein to recover the same, jointly or severely from the petitioner herein, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, and Mr.Shukhbir Singh, driver of the offending vehicle.

3. The petitioner is further aggrieved of the demand notice dated 05.05.2022 issued by the respondent no. 2 herein, issuing recovery certificate for recovering a sum of Rs.41,99,490/- from the petitioner herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as owner of the offending vehicle, had the requisite Permit and Certificate of Fitness, issued by the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for the offending vehicle. He submits that, therefore, the entire compensation paid to the Claimants in the above Claim Petition, cannot be claimed by the respondent no.1 from the petitioner.

5. He further submits that the compensation amount has to be recovered from the driver of the offending vehicle and the petitioner herein in equal proportion.

6. He submits that pursuant to the interim order dated 15.07.2022 of this Court, the petitioner has already deposited approximately Rs.21 lakhs with the learned Registrar General of this Court. He submits that, therefore, the above execution proceedings and the demand notice issued by the respondent no.2 should be quashed.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that the petitioner/owner, alongwith the driver of the Offending Vehicle, namely Mr.Shukhbir Singh, had challenged the Award dated 22.12.2010 by way of an appeal, being MAC.APP.237/2017, Ram Kumar & Anr v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors.. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 08.07.2019.

8. He submits that the petitioner herein cannot reopen his challenge to the Award passed by the Tribunal by now challenging the execution proceedings initiated for the enforcement of the said Award.

9. I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

10. The learned Tribunal, by way of the Award dated 22.12.2010, while awarding compensation in favour of the claimants in the Claim Petition before it, had observed as under:

"Issue No. 3

Respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement nowhere stated that respondents no.1 was having any valid driving license to drive the offending truck at the time of accident. They even had not disclosed the detail and particulars of the driving license in their written statement so that insurance company could get it verified R3W1 proved notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/A stated to respondents no.1 and 2 during evidence stage asking them to produce driving license of the respondents no.1 also. This notice was sent by registered post to both respondents vide postal receipts Ex.R3W1/2 and 3 which is presumed to be served upon them but they did not care to produce the valid and proper driving license of the respondent no.1 and to appear in the court to give any other explanation. In such circumstances, by taking adverse interfere against respondents no.1 & 2, it can be said that respondent no.1 was not having any valid and proper driving license at the time of accident. This issue is thus decided against the respondents no.1 and 2 and in favour of respondent no.3.

xxxxxx

"Re