IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4489 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:18.7.2014 The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society Ltd......Appellant(s) Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ors......Respondent(s) FAO No.4490 of 2014 (O&M) The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society Ltd......Appellant(s) Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ors......Respondent(s) FAO No.4491 of 2014 (O&M) The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society Ltd......Appellant(s) Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether Reporter of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
* * * Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
(Oral) These appeals (i.e.FAO No.4489 to 4491 of 2014) have been Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the Award dated 4.2.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari, whereby compensation has been granted in favour of claimant/respondent No.1 in MACT Case Nos.116/2013, 117/2013 and 118/2013.
While passing the impugned Award, the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability to pay compensation and the appellant along with its driver was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant jointly and severally on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the fact that the offending vehicle i.e.HR-47-J-0786 was validly insured at the time of accident as Policy placed on record of the Tribunal as Ex.R-5 pertained to the period subsequent to the date of accident.
While filing these appeals challenging the impugned Award, the appellant also moved an application in all these cases purported to be under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for production of additional evidence to prove the Insurance Policy which was valid from 7.6.2010 to 6.6.2011.
The appellant also placed on record a photocopy of such an Insurance Policy as Annexure A-1 with the appeal.
The appeal came up for hearing on 1.7.2014.
However, the same was adjourned on a request made on behalf of the appellant for 4.7.2014.
The appellant further filed an application i.e.CM No.12917-CII of 2014 in FAO No.4489 of 2014 to place on record original copy of the Insurance Policy (photocopy of which was already placed on record as Annexure A-1 with the appeal).Para No.2 of the said application reads thus: “That appellant-applicant now with great efforts traced out the original insurance policy (Annexure A-1) and wants to place on record the Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh same.
The appellant-applicant also wants to place on record the copy of written statement filed by the insurance company before the Ld.
MACT, Rewari.
These documents are necessary for the just decision of the case.
Therefore, the appellant- applicant may kindly be allowed to place on record the aforesaid annexures.
The appellant- applicant may kindly be exempted from filing certified copy of Annexure A-2, however, the appellant-applicant is also annexing the photocopy of the written statement filed by the insurance company.”
.
After perusing the copies sought to be produced on record as an original Insurance Policy along with this application, this Court passed the following order on 4.7.2014: “The instant application i.e.CM No.12917- CII of 2014 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for placing on record the insurance policy as Annexure A-1 alleging the same to be original policy.
Let a notice of this application be issued to respondent no.3/Insurance Company to verify as to whether the copy placed on record as Annexure A-1 with the aforesaid application is the original one as issued to the appellant.
The records of the Insurance Company with regard to issuance of the policy be also produced before the Court on the Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh date fixed.
At the asking of the Court, Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3-Insurance Company.
List on 7.7.2014.
To be shown in the urgent list.
Let the appellant be also present in Court on the date fixed.
A copy of this order be given to Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate under the signature of Bench Secretary of this Court.”
.
On July 7, 2014, respondent No.3 sought time to file an affidavit with regard to information sought by the Court.
On July 14, 2014, the following order was passed: “Though it has been asserted that the amount of premium was collected on 04.06.2010 in cash,neither the counterfoil/copy of the receipt nor the premium register has been shown wherein the amount has been entered.
Let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, with regard to the information sought, by an officer not below the rank of Regional Manager.
List on 18th July, 2014.
To be shown in the urgent list.”
.
Today two separate affidavits of Sh.R.N.Gupta, Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co LTD.and Sh.Pawan Kumar, Assistant Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Manager, New India Assurance Co.LTD.have been filed which are taken on record.
As per the affidavit of Sh.R.N.Gupta, Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Policy No.35380431100100000710 was issued validly in favour of the appellant.
However, in the affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., it has been stated that the Insurance Policy available on the Court file is not the original policy as the same is not having any insurance stamp which is necessary.
In view of the affidavit of Sh.
Pawan Kumar, Assistant Manager, Rewari, the Insurance Policy sought to be placed on record by the appellant as original along with CM No.12917-CII of 2014 cannot be held to be original policy issued to the appellant.
Thus, the appellant has filed the instant application on false premises and has tried to mislead this Court with regard to originality of the policy in question issued to him.
It is well settled that any petition wherein a false plea has been put up has to be dismissed at its threshold.
Reliance can be made in this regard on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh & ORS.(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114.
In Prestige Lights LTD.versus SBI (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a litigant is guilty of suppressing the facts or not disclosing the facts, then such a petition should be dismissed without adjudicating on merits.
There is a catena of judgments wherein it has been held that the Court should ensure that a frivolous petition must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb such petitions.
In this regard, reliance can be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh case of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and otheRs.2010(1) RCR (Civil) 842.
In Salem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party and thus, the costs imposed should be actual reasonable costs.
A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.18346 of 2005 decided on 20.5.2009 while dismissing the review petition imposed a costs of Rs.1,00,000/-observing that no one has a right to waste the court's time.
Thus, the application i.e.CM No.12917-CII of 2014 in FAO No.4489 of 2014 as well as applications for additional evidence i.e.CM Nos.12661,12666 and 12671-CII of 2014 in FAO Nos.4489 to 4491 of 2014 respectively are dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.50,000/- in each petition.
Let the costs be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee.
Since the appellant has failed to prove the existence of valid Insurance Policy before the Tribunal at the relevant time, these appeals have no merit and are hereby dismissed with costs as observed above.
July 18, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4490 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:18.7.2014 The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society Ltd......Appellant(s) Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
(Oral) For ordeRs.see FAO No.4489 of 2014 tilted as “The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society LTD.Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ORS.July 18, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4491 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:18.7.2014 The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society Ltd......Appellant(s) Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
(Oral) For ordeRs.see FAO No.4489 of 2014 tilted as “The New Haryana Coop.
Transport Society LTD.Versus Anand Kumar Tyagi & ORS.July 18, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh