SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(J&K) 80

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mushtaq Ahmad Kutary and Others – Respondent
CONC No.1220/2015 and RP No.54/2022
Decided on : 17-8-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mr. M.A. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent No.3/review petitioner

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the legal principles related to the validity of the driver's license and the liability of the Insurance Company.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Review Petition - Code of Civil Procedure, Order XLVII Rule 1 - The court allowed the condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the Review Petition. The Review Petition sought to review the judgement/order dated 10th March 2015 passed in CIMA no.77/2014 titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Mushtaq Ahmad Kutay and others. The court considered the grounds for review and recalled the judgement/order dated 10th March 2015, dismissing the Appeal and upholding the Award dated 24th February 2014 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag.

Fact of the Case:

A claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Company resisted the claim, citing the driver's lack of a valid driving license with PSV endorsement. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant, which was appealed by the Insurance Company. The Appeal was decided in favor of the Insurance Company, granting the right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle. The Review Petition sought to review this judgement.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the Review Petition, recalling the judgement/order dated 10th March 2015 and dismissing the Appeal. The court upheld the Award dated 24th February 2014 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag.

Issues: The issues included the entitlement to compensation for injuries, the validity of the driver's license, and the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing the review based on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The court also discussed the legal principles related to the validity of the driver's license and the liability of the Insurance Company.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Review Petition, recalling the judgement/order dated 10th March 2015 and dismissing the Appeal. The court upheld the Award dated 24th February 2014 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag.

JUDGMENT :

CONC No.1220/2015

Delay of 88 days in filing Petition seeking review of judgement/ order dated 10th March 2015 passed in CIMA no.77/2014 titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Mushtaq Ahmad Kutay and others, is sought to be condoned.

2. Instant application has been filed on 8th July 2015. The delay is not such as if it could be said or termed to be inordinate one. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent no.3/review petitioner that the Appeal (CIMA no.77/2014) was listed before a Bench of this Court on 10th March 2015 and was decided on the same day, although dismissed, yet right of recovery was given against owner on the ground of engaging a driver with licence not carrying “PSV” endorsement. According to learned counsel, respondent no.3/review petitioner came to know about passing of judgement/order dated 10th March 2015 only when recovery petition was filed before the Tribunal and he was summoned to appear before it and, accordingly, he applied for certified copy of judgement dated 10th March 2015 and subsequently approached this Court.

3. In view of above, there is sufficient cause shown by applicant for consideration and, resultantly, the application is allowed and delay of 88 days in filing Review Petition is condoned.

4. Disposed of.

Review Petition No.54/2022

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

6. Review of judgement/order dated 10th March 2015 passed by a Bench of this Court in an Appeal, bearing CIMA no.77/2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited v. Mushtaq Ahmad Kutay and others, is sought for in the instant petition.

7. As is gatherable from perusal of the file, a claim petition was filed by respondent no.1/claimant before the Tribunal on 27th February 2007, averring therein that on 1st January 2004, he was traveling in offending vehicle bearing Registration no.JK01B-3221, which was going from Khanabal towards Srinagar, in connection with election rally and on reaching Chechekoot, Awantipora National Highway, offending vehicle turned turtle, resultantly passengers traveling in the vehicle got serious injured and that petitioner also received multipole injuries on various parts of his body particularly on head and had been rendered disabled. Respondent no.1/claimant sought compensation in the amount of Rs.40.00 Lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”)

8. Insurance Company resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal. Their stand was that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and without PSV endorsement thereon.

9. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed following Issues for determination, which are:-

    (1) Whether on 1st of January 2004, the petitioner while travelling in motor vehicle No.3221-JK01B driven by respondent NO.1, while reaching at the Checkekoot at NHW, was injured when the vehicle turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered, to what extent and from whom? OPP

(3) Whether the driver was not holding an effective D/L with PSV endorsement and the vehicle did not have valid R/P and R/C, hence the respondent-insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2-owner? OPR3

(4) Relief.

10. Claimants in support of their claim before the Tribunal produced and examined five witnesses. Insurance Company produced two witnesses in support of its stand. By virtue of Award dated 24th February 2014, the Tribunal found claimant entitled to compensation in the amount Rs.4,13,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization.

11. Insurance Company filed Appeal, being CIMA no.77/2014, as it felt aggrieved of the Tribunal Award dated 24th February 2014. A Bench of this Court vide judgement/order dated 10th March 2015 allowed the Appeal and gave right of recovery to Insurance Company. Review thereof is s

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top