1 2025:CGHC:45781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 866 of 2025 1 - Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through, Its Registrar, Arvind Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari Aged About 45 Years, R/o Campus Of Dr. C.V. Raman University Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Balram Singh S/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S. Gorela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Animesh Singh S/o Balram Singh Aged About 14 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S. Gorela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jayesh Singh S/o Balram Singh Aged About 11 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S. Gorela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bharat Singh S/o Balram Singh Aged About 9 Years R/o Village Khodri, P.S. Gorela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Respondent No. 2 To 4 Minors Through Their Next Friend And Father Balram Singh 5 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Daupara Bazaarpara Chowk Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 6 - Bharat Sahu S/o Late Sh. Jivan Lal Aged About 55 Years R/o Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. To kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Execution Case No. EXE. С.Т. / 279/2018, rejecting the petitioner's application for discharge; ii. To kindly hold and declare that the petitioner has substantially complied with the decree and is not liable for any further execution or coercive process in the said matter; iii. To kindly direct the learned Executing Court to pursue further recovery, if any, from Judgment-Debtor Nos. 1 and 2 alone, after duly considering the disclosures made by the petitioner in its application dated 17.01.2025; iv. To kindly pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the present case are that a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by respondents No.1 to 4 on account of death of Smt. Om Singh. On 22.1.2015, Smt. Om Singh alongwith her father Hari Singh were going to Uslapur Railway Station from Irrigation Colony, Sakri, when they reached near Gokhale Nala and were waiting for someone, respondent No.5 – Rajesh Sahu while driving a Mini Bus bearing registration No.C.G.04-E-0197 rashly and negligently dashed her. Consequently, she sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied under the authority of the petitioner. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal vide award dated 13.12.2017, awarded compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum 3 from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization. The driver, owner and the petitioner were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The claimants filed the execution case before the learned Claims Tribunal, which was registered as Execution C.T. No.279 of 2018. The petitioner appeared before the learned Executing Court and deposited a sum of Rs.3,61,010/- on 25.8.2018. 4. An application was moved by the award holders under Order 21 Rule 46 of CPC and the learned Executing Court passed an order on 30.10.2018, directing the petitioner/ University to deposit a sum of Rs.2,46,510/-, which was accordingly deposited on 31.10.2018. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the learned Executing Court. Vide order dated 12.9.2024, learned Executing Court initiated proceedings for the arrest and civil detention of the petitioner/ Registrar. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 17.1.2025 making prayer for discharge from the execution proceedings on the ground that a substantial part of the award i.e. Rs.6,07,520/- has already been deposited by the petitioner. 5. The claimants/ respondents No.1 to 4 filed reply to the said application. The Learned Executing Court, vide order dated 17.6.2025, rejected the application moved by the petitioner, applying the principle of joint and several liability and refused to discharge the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Tribunal had fastened liability jointly upon driver, owner and the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.6,07,520/- out of the total sum of compensation Rs.8,76,400/-. He would contend that the driver and owner of the vehicle have deliberately evaded execution proceedings for over six years. He 4 would contend that despite full cooperation of the petitioner, the learned Executing Court initiated coercive action against him. He would contend that the learned Executing Court wrongly proceeded on the principle of joint and several liability, ignoring the principles of fairness, equity and proportionate burden-sharing. He would also submit that the learned Executing Court has not taken any action against the defaulting parties. Accordingly, he would pray to set aside the order dated 17.6.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents. 8. Admittedly, on account of death of Smt. Om Singh, a claim case was filed by respondent No.4 and an award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 13.12.2017, whereby a sum of Rs.8,76,400/- was awarded alongwith interest @7.5%. The liability was fastened jointly and severally upon the driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the petitioner. 9. In the execution case, the driver and owner have not appeared. It is true that the petitioner has deposited Rs.6,07,520/- against the amount of compensation. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Executing Court seeking discharge from the execution proceedings on the ground that he has deposited a substantial part of the award and the driver and owner are deliberately evading service of summons. The learned Tribunal rejected the said application. 10. It is well settled principle of law that in cases of negligence, each wrongdoer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. The injured party is not 5 required to establish the extent of responsibility of each award debtor separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each award debtor separately. 11. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi