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 that in view of the ratio

decidendi culled out by this Court at Annexures P-5 and P-6,

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN

2016.04.12 16:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

Civil Revision No.4222 of 2014

{2}

objection qua non-holding of route permit is not available to the

Insurance Company and qua maintainability of the review application,

he has relied upon paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rendered in Kunhayammed and others vs. State of

Kerala and another 2000 (6) Supreme Court Cases 359. In support

of his contentions, he has also placed reliance upon the information

sought under Right to Information Act to contend that vehicle bearing

No.HR-38C-5457 had the route permit valid from 24.11.2003 to

23.11.2008, thus, urges this Court for remanding the matter back to

the MACT to decide the review application afresh on merits.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 submits that in view of the dismissal of the appeal,

though it may be on account of being barred by law of limitation but

there is detailed order, therefore, the review application has rightly

been dismissed as there is no provision to entertain the same.

Nothing prevented the petitioner to lead evidence sought to be

placed on record in the review application and thus, valuable right

has accrued and allowing application would tantamount to de-novo of

trial which is not permissible in law. Thus, urges this Court for

dismissal of the revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper book.

It would be apt to reproduce paragraph 18 of the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN

2016.04.12 16:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

Civil Revision No.4222 of 2014

{3}

Kunhayammed's case (supra) which reads thus:-

“18. In our opinion what has been stated by this Court

applies also to a case where a special leave petition

having been dismissed by a non- speaking order the

applicant approaches the High Court by moving a petition

for review. May be that the Supreme Court was not

inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under

Article 136 probably because it felt that it was open to the

applicant to move the High Court itself. As nothing has

been said specifically in the order dismissing the special

leave petition one is left merely guessing. We do not think

it would be just to deprive the aggrieved person of the

statutory right of seeking relief in review jurisdiction of the

High Court if a case for relief in that jurisdiction could be

made out merely because a special leave petition und