United India Insurance Company ... vs Sandeep
2023 Latest Caselaw 4969 P&H

                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056290




                                           2023:PHHC:056290
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

110                                      CR-2345-2023
                                         Date of decision : 21.04.2023

United India Insurance Company Ltd.
                                                        ... Petitioner
                     Versus

Sandeep                                                .. Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:-     Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
                   ***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner/Insurance Company has challenged the order dated

17.03.2023 (Annexure P-9) whereby its objections have been dismissed by the

Executing Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree which

had been obtained by the respondent/plaintiff was ambiguous and no specific

amount had been decreed and therefore, it cannot be executed. He also submits

that the Executing Court cannot award any interest and the bank account of the

petitioner/Insurance Company has been erroneously attached by the impugned

order (Annexure P-9).

Heard.

The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the

letter reference No.Ag/AG.03/12 dated 09.04.2012 regarding claim

No.11048731/1/01/90000211 in policy No.110487/31/01/00008481 issued by

the petitioner/defendant No.1 (Insurance Company) is null and void, it is not

binding upon the plaintiff and he is entitled to the legal claim in respect of this

policy and mandatory injunction be issued against defendant No.1 regarding

the relief.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056290

2023:PHHC:056290

-------

The suit preferred by the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by the

trial Court on 30.07.2014 (Annexure P-2) but the appeal filed thereagainst had

been allowed and the suit was decreed by order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure P-

4). The respondent/decreeholder is stated to have purchased a vehicle from

Sher Singh on 19.09.2011 and the endorsement to this effect in the registration

certificate was carried out on 26.09.2011. The vehicle had been insured with

the petitioner/defendant No.1 (Insurance Company) and the validity of the

insurance was from 22.03.2011 to 21.03.2012. The vehicle had been stolen on

the intervening night of 09/10.10.2011. It was held by the Appellate Court that

as the registration had been validly transferred in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff, the insurance was valid and therefore, the

petitioner/defendant No.1 (Insurance Company) cannot escape its liability

under the policy.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel

for the petitioner that as the decree was not for a specified amount, the same

cannot be executed. It had been set out in the decree that the

respondent/plaintiff would be entitled to the claim under the insurance policy.

The claim is to be quantified in terms of the policy and paid to the claimant.

The petitioner/judgment debtor is to satisfy the decree and only thereafter, its

account could be released.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition which stands

dismissed.

                                              (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
April 21, 2023                                        JUDGE
sonia gugnani
                Whether speaking/reasoned              :     Yes/No
                Whether Reportable                     :     Yes/No

                                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056290

                                             2 of 2