F.A.O. No.5211 of 2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No.5211 of 2006 (O&M)
Decided on : 26-11-2009
United India Insurance Company Limited
.... Appellant
VERSUS
Rashmi Dhir & others
.... Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present:- Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (Oral).
This is insurer’s appeal, challenging the impugned
award dated 2.8.2006, whereby the respondents-claimants have
been awarded compensation on account of injuries sustained by
Ms. Rashmi Dhir-claimant (herein respondent No.1), caused due to
rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No.PB-10T-9533, as per
the certified copy of impugned award.
F.A.O. No.5211 of 2006 (O&M) -2-
The only argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that the issue No.1 with regard to
involvement of bus in question has been decided erroneously as
the accident has taken place with Bus No.PB-10F-9333 and not
with the Bus No.PB-10T-9533, and the appellant could not lead
any evidence in this regard as the aforesaid fact came to their
knowledge after passing of the Award. Learned counsel has
further submitted that because of this fact, the appellant has also
moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for leading
additional evidence along with this appeal. Therefore, keeping in
view the aforesaid documents, which are sought to be proved by
way of additional evidence, the findings of the Tribunal on issue
No.1, cannot be sustained.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
However, from the impugned award, I find that no such
plea was taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in its
pleadings and therefore, application for leading additional evidence
at this stage for the facts, which are not pleaded, cannot be
allowed. Moreover, despite the fact that the appellant has taken a
preliminary objection and was given permission under Section 170
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to take all the defences/grounds to
contest the claim and a specific issue i.e. issue No.4 was framed,
which reads as under:-
“Whether the claimant has filed the petition in collusion with
respondent Nos.1 & 2? OPR”
F.A.O. No.5211 of 2006 (O&M) -3-
Yet, no evidence was lead on this issue and the
aforesaid issue was decided against the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in
the impugned award of the Tribunal.
Dismissed.
26th November, 2009. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
Monika JUDGE