FAO No.1027 of 2006

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.1027 of 2006

Date of Decision. 22.07.2010

United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-

B, Chandigarh through its Manager Sh. R.C. Bansal

.........Appellant

Versus

Jhalsu Sahni s/o Band Lal Sahni r/o village Maloya and others

.......Respondents

Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Rajnesh Narula, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate

for respondent No.4.

2.

FAO No.3298 of 2006

Joginder Kaur wife of Kapur Singh, R/o House No.466, Village

Maloya, Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

.........Appellants

Versus

Kamlesh Devi r/o Village Dasouli Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala (Pb.)

LR of Jaspal Singh driver of Truck (since deceased) and others

.......Respondents

Present: Mr. Rajnesh Narula, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

2.

FAO No.3299 of 2006

Jehlsu Sahni s/o Band Lal Sahni, resident of village Maloya, U.T.,

Chandigarh

.........Appellant

Versus

Kamlesh Devi LR of Jaspal Singh (since deceased) and others

.......Respondents

FAO No.1027 of 2006

-2-

Present: Mr. Rajnesh Narula, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

-.-

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

1.

All these three appeals arise out of the same accident.

FAO No.3298 of 2006 is by the claimants, who have preferred an

appeal against the dismissal of their petition. The dismissal arose on

the account of the fact that they had earlier filed a petition on the

very same cause of action in MACT Case No.128 of 2001 under the

tittle “Kapoor Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh and others” at Panipat. The

claimants were reported to have suppressed the fact of the earlier

institution and the dismissal and filed the petition before MACT,

Chandigarh. Obviously, there cannot be two independent claims

against the very same award. If the earlier petition had been

dismissed for want of proof, the appeal should have been filed only

against that judgment and a fresh petition in yet another Tribunal

could not have been filed or entertained. The dismissal of the case,

under these circumstances, was justified.

2.

The appeal in FAO No.3298 of 2006 is dismissed. It shall

be open, however for the claimants to prefer an appeal against the

decision in MACT Case No.128/2001, if they are so advised and if

they can show their bona fides in any way that they were labouring

FAO No.1027 of 2006

-3-

in any mistake or wrong advice in filing a fresh petition in another

Court.

3.

In two other cases, FAO No.1026 is filed at the instance of

the insurance company and with reference to the very same claim,

FAO No.3299 is filed by the claimants for enhancement.

4.

In FAO No.1026 of 2006, the insurance company filed an

application for additional evidence on the ground that although they

had secured a report that the driver did not have a valid driving

licence and even the permit was not valid, those documents were

not filed in Court by the negligence of the counsel and permission is

sought by the insurer to produce the documents and examine

witnesses. A negligence attributed to the counsel shall not be a

ground for adducing additional evidence in appeal and to seek for

exclusion of liability. I reject the plea sought through the

application.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company

contends on merits of the claim that the liability must have been

attributed only to the truck driver and in fact even in a case filed by

some other persons in relation to the very same accident before the

MACT, Panipat, it was contended that only the truck driver was

responsible for the accident. A decision or a reference