Dismissed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sampat Devi & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2011CR/2904/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a review order. The reviewing court had correctly held the insurer liable for motor accident compensation based on Supreme Court precedents, notwithstanding the driver's license issue, and the High Court found no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed as the review order correctly applied settled law and no grave injustice was found.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.2904 of 2011(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.2904 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2011

¶5

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Smt.Sampat Devi and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mrs.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.11560-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Civil Revision No.2904 of 2011

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.11.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned MACT Faridabad, vide which application filed by respondent-claimant for review/recalling of award dated 30.7.2010 was allowed.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned MACT Faridabad.

¶19

Briefly stated, respondent-claimant filed a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') on account of death of her son in an accident on 12.2.2008 involving Eicher Canter bearing registration No.HR-

¶20

Civil Revision No.2904 of 2011(O&M) -2-

¶21

55-4878 being driven by respondent-Rattan Pal Singh. The same was owned by respondent-Naveen Kumar Rana and was insured with the present petitioner-Insurance Company. Petition was contested by present petitioner-Insurance Company on the ground that driver was not having valid driving licence and has placed reliance upon National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others IV (2007) ACC 7 (P&H), Hans Raj and another v. Anil Sachdeva and another , IV (2007) ACC 520 (P&H); and Zile Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and others , III (2008) ACC 487 (P&H).

¶22

Issue No.5 was decided by learned MACT Faridabad in favour of petitioner-Insurance Company by holding that driver was not holding a valid driving licnece at the time of accident. However, while allowing claim petition filed by respondent-claimant, learned MACT Faridabad vide order dated 330.7.2010, directed only owner and driver to make the payment while dismissing the claim petition against the present petitionerInsurance Company.

¶23

Aggrieved against the said judgment passed by learned MACT Faridbad, an application for review/recall of the said order was filed on behalf of the respondent-claimant by taking the plea that even if stand taken by Insurance Company is correct that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy on the part of the insured on the plea that driver was not holding a valid driving licence, MACT should have directed Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation and that the Insurance Company could be given right of recovery from the insured. As there was apparent mistake on the face of the record on the part of learned

¶24

-3-

¶25

Civil Revision No.2904 of 2011(O&M)

¶26

MACT Faridabad in passing the order exonerating the Insurance Company, the review application was allowed and the following order was passed:-

¶27

“16.Accepting the application, it is thus ordered that notwithstanding failure of claim petition against respondent no.3 on merits, in view of law laid down in rulings reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (supra), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others (supra), Hans Raj and another v. Anil Sachdeva and another (supra), Zile Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and others (supra) , cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company in para-35 of the Award the respondent-insurance company is liable to satisfy the award with right of recovery against owner/respondent no.2, i.e., the insured.”

¶28

The aforementioned order passed by learned MACT Faridabad, in review application is in conformity with the ratio of law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh and others' case (supra), and by this Court in Asha Rani and others' (supra), Anil Sachdeva and another's case (supra) and Zile Singh's case (supra), on which reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company only.

¶29

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionerInsurance Company that respondent-claimant was having right to appeal and that it is not scope of the review application to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶30

However, this plea cannot be accepted. There is apparent error on the face of the record. Original order passed by learned MACT

¶31

-4-

¶32

Civil Revision No.2904 of 2011(O&M)

¶33

Faridabad is against dictum of law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra).

¶34

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned MACT Faridabad in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

¶35

Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:-

¶36

“Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.”

¶37

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being

¶38

devoid of any merit.

¶39

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶40

20.9.2011 meenu

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sampat Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sampat Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mehta Construction Company Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nisha Sharma Vs Chandigarh Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.

Praveen Sharma Vs Chandigarh Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.

Raj Kumar Jain Vs Zila Sainik Board and Ors.

Chief Engineer (Nh) Punjab PWD B& R Patiala & Ors. Vs M/S Satish Aggarwal and Co.

Ravinder Kumar Vs Chief Administrator HUDA and Ors.