Dismissed

Chaudhary Co-Operative v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2013CR/129/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Tribunal's orders dismissing applications for rectification of award and setting aside an ex-parte award. The petitioner, owner of a bus, sought correction of insurer liability from a fixed sum to full coverage and against setting aside an ex-parte award despite having counsel. The Court found the matters were barred by limitation or meritless, noted no infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's orders, and held that the executing court could not go beyond the award. The revision was dismissed as completely meritless.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was held completely meritless and dismissed with no interference in the Tribunal's orders.

Chaudhary Co-Operative Vs National… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 129 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 129 of 2012 Date of decision : September 18, 2013

¶5

Chaudhary Cooperative Transport Society Nagla Rodan

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

National Insurance Company Limited, Karnal and others ....Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶10

Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for respondent no. 1

¶12

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶13

Owner of the offending bus involved in accident (respondent no. 2 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Tribunal) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure P/7 although wrongly mentioned as Annexure P/5 in the revision petition) and order dated 14.9.2010 Annexure P/9 passed by the Tribunal.

¶14

Proforma respondent no. 3 – claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading proforma

¶15

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.19 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

Civil Revision No. 129 of 2012

¶17

-2-

¶18

respondent no. 2 Raj Kumar as respondent no. 1 (driver of the offending bus), petitioner as owner of the offending bus (respondent no. 2) and respondent no. 1 Insurance Company as insurer of the offending bus (respondent no. 3), claiming compensation for damage to car of the claimant caused in the accident.

¶19

Learned Tribunal vide award dated 3.1.2009 Annexure P/1 awarded compensation of 2,45,000/- with interest. Liability of the insurer was restricted to 6000/- with proportionate interest. However, liability of owner and driver of the bus was held to be joint and several for the balance amount with interest.

¶20

Petitioner and proforma respondent no. 2 herein (owner and driver of the bus) filed application Annexure P/3 under sections 151 and 152 read with section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rectification of award dated 3.1.2009 Annexure P/1 alleging that the bus in question was comprehensively insured with respondent no. 1 with its liability to the extent of 7,50,000/- relating to damage to property of third party and therefore, the award apportioning liability of respondent no. 1 to the extent of 6000/- only was liable to be corrected.

¶21

The insurer by filing reply Annexure P/4 opposed the said application which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.9.2010 Annexure P/5.

¶22

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.19 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

Civil Revision No. 129 of 2012

¶24

-3-

¶25

Owner and driver of the bus also simultaneously filed application Annexure P/6 for setting aside ex-parte award Annexure P/1 against them. It was alleged that they had engaged a counsel to defend them in the claim petition but their counsel became slack in defending the case as counsel for the claimant told that no amount shall be recovered from the owner and driver of the bus and the entire amount shall be recovered from the insurer only. The said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.9.2010 Annexure P/7 which is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶26

In addition to the aforesaid, owner and driver of the bus also filed objections Annexure P/8 in the execution petition taking same plea as in the application Annexure P/3 regarding liability of the insurer for the entire amount. The said objections have been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.9.2010 Annexure P/9 which is also under challenge in this revision petition.

¶27

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner contended that insurance policy is already on record depicting the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount awarded vide award Annexure P/1 and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The contention is completely misconceived and untenable. No such objection could be raised

¶29

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.19 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶30

Civil Revision No. 129 of 2012

¶31

-4-

¶32

in the execution petition because the executing court cannot go beyond the award Annexure P/1 to be executed. The contention also cannot be accepted to set aside the ex-parte award because it cannot be said that this is sufficient ground for setting aside ex-parte award. On the contrary, owner (petitioner) and driver of the bus had appeared through counsel in the claim petition before the Tribunal and had also filed written statement, but at subsequent stage, none appeared for them and they were proceeded against ex-parte. There is no ground whatsoever much less sufficient ground for setting aside ex-parte award in these circumstances. It may be added that application Annexure P/6 filed on 12.4.2010 for setting aside ex-parte award dated 3.1.2009 was also hopelessly barred by limitation.

¶33

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

September 18, 2013 'dalbir'

¶35

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.19 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Chaudhary Co-Operative v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaudhary Co-Operative v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Raja Steel Works and Anr. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Raja Steel Works and Anr. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs National Small Inds

Ramesh Vs Rohtash and Ors.

Randhir Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Sas Leasing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Kamla & Ors.