High Court of Jammu and 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 : 17-08-2022
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 – Review of Judgment – First and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that judgment/order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on face of it and permitting order to stand will lead to failure of justice – In absence of any such error, finality attached to judgment/ order cannot be disturbed – What is erroneous on face of record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature and it is to be determined judicially on facts of each case – An error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness has been treated as being apparent – Error apparent on the face of the record should appear either in the order itself or any other document which is incorporated in that order – Impugned Judgment recalled and right thereby given to Insurance Company to recover compensation from owner also deleted – Review Petition allowed. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 24 and 25)
JUDGMENT :
CONC No.1220/2015
1. 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. R
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others (2004) 3 SCC 297. (Para 12) – Relied.
: : (1) Application for review would lie, among others, when an order/ judgment suffers from error apparent on face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice.(2) ....
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 th....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the validity of the driving license and the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the requirement of a specific endorsement for driving a transport vehicle, based on the case law of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance company Lt....
Endorsements on driving licences are necessary for operating transport vehicles, establishing liability standards under the Motor Vehicles Act.
An insurer is liable for compensation when the driver possesses a valid driving license for a light motor vehicle, overriding the lower tribunal's erroneous liability assessment on the vehicle owner.
A driver authorized to drive a transport vehicle is also authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle as per recent amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.