Dismissed

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Chand

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2011CR/381/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's civil revision petition filed under Article 227 against an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat directing the company to settle a motor accident claim within 40 days, holding no grave injustice was caused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner dismissed and burdened with deposit of Rs.5000/- costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurgaon.

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.381 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 20, 2011

¶5

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

.....Petitioner

Jagdish Chand

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Raj Karan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.1524-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Civil Revision No.381 of 2011

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against award dated 18.11.2010, passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, Annexure P5, in application No.639 of 2010.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon.

¶19

Admitted facts are that respondent is a registered owner of vehicle Maruti Alto LX bearing registration No.HR-26-AJ-6325 Model 2007 and the same is insured with the present petitioner. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.8.2008 in the area of Police Station Bhondsi and hit against a tree in the process of saving a cow, which came in front of the car. The vehicle was completely damaged and a DDR to this effect bearing No.31 dated 2.9.2008 was lodged in Police Station Bhondsi by Anil Kumar, who was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. Respondent-owner

¶20

Civil Revision No.381 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶21

was also in the car at the time of accident. Both of them were having valid driving licence. However, petitioner-Insurance Company did not settle the claim of applicant and rather put off the matter on one pretext or the other. He approached Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, who passed the impugned order, operative part of which reads as under:-

¶22

“ So we direct the respondent to appoint some surveyor and to get examined the car in question parked with Apra Service Station, Sector 14, Gurgaon, and to settle the claim of the petitioner accordingly within 40 days. The needful will be done by the respondent including the appointment of surveyor etc. The applicant can approach this Court if not satisfied with the claim assessed by the surveyor. The petition of the applicant is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.”

¶23

However, in spite of complying with the said order, Insurance Company has filed the present revision petition to further harass the registered owner As is clear from the impugned order passed by learned Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, the vehicle is still lying parked with Apra Service Station, Sector 14, Gurgaon, which is an authorised service station of Maruti vehicles and the petitionerInsurance Company was directed to settle the claim of respondent-owner within 40 days by appointing a surveyor.

¶24

Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon, in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

¶25

Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

¶26

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-

¶27

-3-

¶28

Civil Revision No.381 of 2011 (O&M)

¶29

Insurance Company without any basis. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Petitioner is also burdened with cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Gurgaon.

¶30

20.1.2011 meenu

¶31

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Chand

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

Bimla Devi Vs the Presiding Officer and Ors.

Virender Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Manohar Lal Raj Kumar Bko Vs Enforcement Officer O/O Rpfc

Ajmer Singh Vs Mangat Ram

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha Vs State of Punjab