Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia vs Punjab National Bank And Anr on 4 September, 2023
CWP-16926-2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:116810-DB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(232) CWP-16926-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.09.2023
Sonia ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
for respondent No.1-Bank.
Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
3 2 ie ok
LISA GILL, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated
13.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned District Magistrate, SAS Nagar
under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also for setting aside
warrant of possession dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure P-10). Primary ground of
challenge raised in this writ petition is that loan in question was taken by
father of the petitioner, who had also drawn an insurance policy from
respondent No.2 for securing the loan amount in the event of his death.
2. Notice of motion was issued in this writ petition on 11.07.2019.
Interim order in favour of the petitioner was passed on 16.07.2019. Learned
counsel for the respondents points out to decision dated 05.11.2019 passed by
MANPREET SINGH
2023.09.13 16:32
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CWP-16926-2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:116810-DB 2
learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh to
submit that complaint filed by wife of the deceased i.e. mother of the
petitioner was dismissed on 05.11.2019, wherein it has been observed as
under :-
"14. Perusal of aforesaid clause make it abundantly clear
that it was the security i.e. hypothecated house bearing
No.36, Vikas Nagar, Baltana, Zirakpur, Mohali, which was
fully insured and not the life of the borrower i.e. the
husband of the complainant, namely, Late Sh. Khazan
Chand. Had there been any loss to the said residential
house (security) on account of any of the circumstances
mentioned in the aforesaid Clause 15, in that eventuality,
the complainant would have been entitled to be
indemnified on account of said loss. However, in the
instant case, it is not so. The said clause does not cover the
risk of life of the borrower. As such, there is no room for
doubt that only the mortgaged house was insured and not
the life of the borrower. In our opinion, the claim raised by
the complainant, in this complaint on account of death of
her husband, is purely out of coverage and she is not
entitled for any kind of indemnification by the opposite
parties on that account."
No appeal has been filed challenging decision dated 05.11.2019
passed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.
Chandigarh.
3. Perusal of file reveals that none had appeared on behalf of the
petitioner on the last two occasions when this writ petition was taken up for
hearing. It has been observed in the order dated 25.07.2022, that in case
learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear on the next date of hearing,
the writ petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution. Today again, there is
manpreet sincy NO representation on behalf of the petitioner despite learned counsel for the
2023.09.13 16:32
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CWP-16926-2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:116810-DB 3
petitioner being notified even in the CM-13016-CWP-2023 i.e. application
seeking vacation of the interim order.
4. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the
matter any longer. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in default and for
non-prosecution.
5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
September 04, 2023
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned --:: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANPREET SINGH
2023.09.13 16:32
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
