Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal Advocate Vs. the New India Assurance Co.and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126280
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr.Sudhir Mittal Advocate
RespondentThe New India Assurance Co.and Others
Excerpt:
civil revision no.3649 of 2013(o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh 237 civil revision no.3649 of 2013(o&m) date of decision: 10.2.2014 bhagwanti devi and others ......petitioners versus the new india assurance co.and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.sudhir mittal, advocate for the petitioners.ms.rohini bedi, advocate, for mr.raghujeet madan, advocate, for the respondents. **** sabina, j. this petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 12.4.2013 (annexure p-7) passed by the executing court, whereby objection petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that rohtash, driver of the offending vehicle, was in possession of the driving licence permitting him to drive car, scooter, jeep and 'light motor vehicle'. as per the relevant rules, tractor would be covered under the definition of 'light motor vehicle'. hence, the executing court was liable to frame issues and then decide the objection petition filed by the petitioners.learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the executing court could not go behind the decree. the tribunal-respondent no.1, while deciding the claim devi anita 2014.02.13 09:54 i am approving this document chandigarh civil revision no.3649 of 2013(o&m) 2 petition filed by the claimants, had given liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount from the insurer. in the present case, claimant ashok kumar had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. while allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants, motor accident claims tribunal, vide its award dated 18.12.2009 (anenxure p-1).held that the insurance company would be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the insurer of the offending vehicle. the tribunal, while deciding issue nos.2 and 4 held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident as the tractor trolley driven by him was a heavy vehicle, whereas, he was holding licence permitting him to drive 'light motor vehicle'. the executing court was to execute the award and could not adjudicate on the aspect as to whether the tractor would be covered under the definition of 'light motor vehicle'. in this regard, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners was to have filed an appeal against the award passed by the tribunal dated 18.12.2009 (annexure p-1).the executing court had thus, rightly dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioners as it could not go behind the decree. no ground for interference by this court is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge february 10, 2014 anita devi anita 2014.02.13 09:54 i am approving this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.3649 of 2013(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 237 Civil Revision No.3649 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2014 Bhagwanti Devi and others ......petitioners Versus The New India Assurance Co.and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Ms.Rohini Bedi, Advocate, for Mr.Raghujeet Madan, Advocate, for the respondents.

**** SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 12.4.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Executing Court, whereby objection petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Rohtash, driver of the offending vehicle, was in possession of the driving licence permitting him to drive car, scooter, jeep and 'light motor vehicle'.

As per the relevant rules, tractor would be covered under the definition of 'light motor vehicle'.

Hence, the Executing Court was liable to frame issues and then decide the objection petition filed by the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Executing Court could not go behind the decree.

The tribunal-respondent No.1, while deciding the claim Devi Anita 2014.02.13 09:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3649 of 2013(O&M) 2 petition filed by the claimants, had given liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount from the insurer.

In the present case, claimant Ashok Kumar had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident.

While allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide its award dated 18.12.2009 (Anenxure P-1).held that the insurance company would be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the insurer of the offending vehicle.

The tribunal, while deciding issue Nos.2 and 4 held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident as the tractor trolley driven by him was a heavy vehicle, whereas, he was holding licence permitting him to drive 'light motor vehicle'.

The Executing Court was to execute the award and could not adjudicate on the aspect as to whether the tractor would be covered under the definition of 'light motor vehicle'.

In this regard, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners was to have filed an appeal against the award passed by the tribunal dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-1).The Executing Court had thus, rightly dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioners as it could not go behind the decree.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 10, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.02.13 09:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh