Sanjay Kumar Raju vs Smt. Janki Devi

1 CR-1146-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1146 of 2024
SANJAY KUMAR RAJU
Versus
SMT. JANKI DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Bhanu Prakash Vishwakarma - Advocate for the Respondent
No.6.
Shri Vivek Singh - Advocate for the Respondent No.8.
ORDER
The present Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
19.11.2024 passed by the Claims Tribunal/M.A.C.T. in execution
proceedings whereby the application filed by the present Petitioner/Judgment
Debtor to proceed against the owner of the vehicle in terms of Order 21 Rule
30 of CPC has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the present
Revision are that a claim case was filed against the present applicant who is
driver of the offending vehicle, alongwith the owner of offending vehicle
and the Insurance Company. The award was to the tune of Rs.14,70,344/-,
out of which the Insurance Company was saddled with liability of only
Rs.50,000/- and the rest amount was to be paid jointly and severally by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:16:14 PM

2 CR-1146-2024
owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

3. The applicant being the driver of the offending vehicle has
undisputedly paid an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs before the Claims Tribunal.
Though this amount is more than the principal liability of the Driver &
Owner, but some more amount is required to be paid because the entire
interest part has not been satisfied by the applicant while depositing an
amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants are proceeding ahead against the present applicant
who is driver of the vehicle to recover the remaining interest portion of the
awarded amount because the owner has not appeared in the execution
proceedings.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that despite he having paid more
than the principal amount and only a small amount towards interest part
remaining, despite that the Claims Tribunal in execution proceedings is
proceeding ahead to recover the entire amount from the present applicant
only and no action is being taken against the driver.
6. It is seen by this Court that when the present applicant had deposited
the amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs then an order dated 23.12.2023 was passed by
the executing court whereby the Executing Court recorded that looking to the
fact that the applicant being driver has deposited an amount of Rs.15.00
lakhs, therefore, it would be appropriate if for remaining amount, the owner
is proceeded against. It directed attachment warrant to be issued against the
owner.
7. However, at a later point of time, the Executing Court started
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:16:14 PM

3 CR-1146-2024
proceeding ahead against the present applicant only and then the present

applicant filed the application before the Executing Court reminding the
Executing Court of the order dated 23.12.2023 whereby the Executing Court
had directed to proceed against the owner for recovery of the remaining
amount.
8. However, the Executing Court has rejected the said application and
request of the applicant on the ground that as per law, in case of joint and
several liability, it is the choice of the decree holder against whom he wishes
to execute the decree/award and since the claimants are inclined to execute
the entire award against the present applicant being the driver of the
offending vehicle, the present applicant should deposit the remaining amount
failing which coercive action shall be taken against him.
9. It cannot be disputed that in claim cases, the driver and the owner
are the joint tortfeasors as the owner is vicariously liable for the act of Driver
whereas the Driver is liable for his own act of negligence. For this reason, the
award was passed saddling joint and several liability and the situation that
arises now is that the applicant bring the driver has satisfied almost the entire
liability under the award but only some portion of the interest remains to be
paid, for which the Claims Tribunal does not seem inclined to proceed
against the owner and is proceeding only against the Driver even for
recovering the remaining interest part.
10. The present applicant was only Driver of the vehicle and he has
deposited substantial amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs which is more than the
principal awarded amount, and only some interest portion remains to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:16:14 PM

4 CR-1146-2024
recovered in the matter. Though the Owner and Driver are jointly and

severally liable but it really seems surprising that the owner has not even
appeared in the proceedings and an amount of Rs.15.00 lakh has been got
recovered from the Driver. The Tribunal is still not proceeding against the
owner.
11. Therefore, looking to the Tribunal's previous order dated
23.12.2023, it would be in the interest of justice that the Executing Court
shall proceed against the owner of the Vehicle under Order 21 Rule 30 of
CPC for recovery of the remaining amount and if the amount cannot be
recovered from the owner despite his detention in civil prison, then the
Executing Court shall recover the remainder amount from the present
applicant.
12. In the above terms, the Revision is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:16:14 PM