FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M)
Date of decision: 8.12.2009
National Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ajmer Kaur & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Talwar,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.28605-CII of 2009
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Affidavit of
N.S.R.C Prasad, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance
Company Limited, Kolkata is taken on record.
FAO No.3782 of 2008
This appeal was filed by the appellant/insurance company
against the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. It is the grouse of the appellant that
application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the
appellant was not decided by the Tribunal despite repeated requests by its
counsel, Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant
has placed on record an affidavit of Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate.
However, this Court found the aforesaid averments contrary to the record
FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) 2
and in these circumstances, comments of the Presiding Officer of the
learned Tribunal were called. Notice was also issued to Shri Swaran Singh
Rattol, Advocate to file additional affidavit, if any. Comments of the
Presiding Officer of the Tribunal were received and according to these
comments, the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 was not pressed by Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/company at any stage.
In view of the aforesaid comments and in the absence of any
further material on record to controvert the same, notice was issued to the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the appellant-company to
appear in person and to explain the conduct of the appellant for taking a
false stand. Vide order dated 5.11.2009, the CMD of the appellant-
company was directed to appear before this court on 30.11.2009.
Civil Misc. application No.26925-CII of 2009 was filed by the
appellant-company seeking exemption of the CMD, which was rejected
vide order dated 17.11.2009. Thereafter, another Civil Misc. application
No.27580-CII of 2009 was filed for exemption of the CMD from appearance
before this Court on 30.11.2009 by the appellant-company. The same was
also rejected. On 30.11.2009, the aforesaid CMD was not present though
an affidavit dated 28.11.2009 sworn by him at Chennai was filed in the
court seeking exemption from his appearance. Vide order dated
30.11.2009, the aforesaid CMD was given another opportunity to appear
before this Court on 8.12.2009.
Today, Shri N.S.R.C. Prasad, CMD of the appellant-company
is present in court and has tendered his unconditional apology before this
court and has also admitted the fact that the ground raised before this court
on the basis of the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 was inaccurate, however, the aforesaid error was described to
FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) 3
be a bona fide mistake.
The unconditional apology tendered by the CMD of the
appellant, who is also present in Court, is accepted. It has further been
assured on his behalf to this Court that corrective/remedial measures will
be taken to see that such errors/mistakes as have been committed in this
case may not occur again and while filing the appeal on behalf of the
Company every endeavour shall be made and it will be ensured that
averments made in the appeal are not contrary to the record.
In view of the aforesaid apology and assurance given to this
Court, no further action is required in this regard.
Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that he
is not pressing the arguments based upon the fact that application of the
appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not
decided by the Tribunal.
Since this appeal was filed challenging the impugned award
only on the question of quantum of compensation and since there was no
permission granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and further that the appellant has not pressed the
argument as raised earlier, I find no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
December 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE