Civil Revision No.4222 of 2014

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.4222 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of decision:04.04.2016

Vinod Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to

see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:-

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

AMIT RAWAL

J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present petition to the impugned order

dated 28.05.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby, review application at the

instance of the owner despite dismissal of the appeal bearing

No.3975 of 2013 being barred by law of limitation, has been rejected.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submits that Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal

(for short 'MACT') held that the Insurance Company shall be able to

recover amount of compensation from the owner owing to the fact

that on the date of alleged accident vehicle in question was not

having route permit. He further submits