Punjab-Haryana High Court
Damodar Singh vs Dhfl General Insurance on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082311
CR-3330
3330 of 2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
126 CR-3330 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided on: 03.07.2024
Damodar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
DHFL General Insurance and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RITU TAGORE,
TAGORE J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.03.2023
(Annexure P--10), whereby an application (Annexure P
P-5) filed by the DHFL
General Insurance Limited,
Limited in claim petition bearing No.MACP No.44/2020
titled as 'Prince Kumar and others vs. DHFL General Insurance Company
Limited and others' for clubbing the petitions titled 'Damodar Singh and
others Vs. Paramjeet and others' bearing MACP No.189 of 2020 and the
petition bearing No.MACP No.44/2020 titled as 'Prince Kumar and others
vs. DHFL General Insurance Company Limited and others', has been
allowed.
2. Learned
rned counsel for the petitioner submits that claimants, being
parents and brothers of deceased Manoj Kumar Singh filed the claim petition
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082311
CR-3330
titled 'Damodar Singh and others Vs. Paramjeet and others' bearing MACP
No.189 of 2020 (Annexure P-1).
1). Respondents No 4 to 6 filed petition
bearing No.MACP No.44/2020 titled as 'Prince Kumar and others vs. DHFL
General Insurance Company Limited and others' seeking compensation for
the death of Manoj Kumar Singh claiming them to be the children and
widow of the deceased. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order
was passed without consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners
in their reply (Annexure P-7).
7). Specifically, it was asserted that deceased
Manoj Kumar Singh never contracted any marriage during his lifetime and
explicitly denied that Anita Devi @ Rinki,
Rinki, one of the claimants in MACP
No.44/2020 titled as 'Prince Kumar and others vs. DHFL General Insurance
Company Limited and others', is the legally wedded wife of deceased Manoj
Kumar Singh.
Singh Also, denied that other claimants so arrayed in the petition are
not the children of the deceased. The claim petition bearing No.MACP
No.44/2020, seeking compensation as legal heirs of deceased Manoj Kumar
Singh, is wholly false and frivolous. By referring to order dated 16.05.2023
(Annexure P-32),
P learned counsel
ounsel further submits that this petition was
referred to Permanent
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana
Ludhiana, for settlement; however, the
learned Court terminated the proceedings vide order ibid, observing that
matter requires adjudication due to the serious question
questions of facts and law
involved.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel that learned MACT, Ludhiana
without properly appreciating the disputed question
questions of fact and law,
encompassed
ed the claim petitions, which shares no reasonable commonality
ty
except for the fact that both involve the demise of Manoj Kumar Singh in
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082311
CR-3330
the motor vehicular accident.
accident Therefore, the order in question does not
withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that purpose of
clubbing the above mentioned petitions was to afford an effective
ffective and
speedy remedy to the claimants, which however, has been rendered nugatory
due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioners of MACP case No.44 of
2020. The learned counsel also raised a grievance
grievance that the presence of the
witnesses as well
well as the counsel of the petitioners is not acknowledged and
recorded in the zimini order of the lead MACP case No.44 of 2020.. To
support his contention, learned counsel referred to the orders passed in
MACP case No.44 from Annexures
Annexure 12 and 13. Learned coun
counsel also
submitted that the online case status of the petition No.189 pref
preferred
erred by the
present petitioner has been shown as disposed of uncontested (Annexure P--
11), which
h is contrary to other orders (Annexure
(Annexure P
P-9 & P-10)
10) passed in the
petition,, causing prejudice
prejudice to the petitioners
petitioners-claimants.. On the above
submissions,, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and their
petition No.189 be restored to its original number and the sta
stage before it was
clubbed.
5. Keeping in view the prayer made in the present petition, I am of
the considered view, issuing notice to the respondents is deemed
unnecessary,, at this stage.
stage
6. It is a matter of record, in the matter of compensation for the
death of Manoj Kumar Singh in a motor vehicular accident dated
28.12.2019, two claim petitions as mentioned above were filed before
learned MACT, Ludhiana. The zimini order dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P
P--
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082311
CR-3330
4) indicate that MACP No.189 of 2020 was transferred to the Court, where
claim petition No.MACP No.44/2020 titled
titled as 'Prince Kumar and others vs.
DHFL General Insurance Company Limited and others' was already
pending. Admittedly, an application (Annexure
Annexure P
P-5) was filed by Insurance
Company in a claim petition No.MACP No.44/2020 titled as 'Prince Kumar
and others vs.
vs. DHFL General Insurance Company Limited and others' for
clubbing the petitions on the plea that the FIR and incident in both the cases
are identical, the parties are related, and subject matter of both the cases is
the same and to
to avoid contradictory decisions. The present petitioners filed
the reply (Annexure P-7)
P 7) and resisted the petition, ddisputing the status
claimants' status as legal heirss of the deceased. The learned MACT clubbed
both the cases and passed
pass the following order
order: -
"Heard.
Heard. The instant claim petition and the claim petition
titled as "Damodar Singh Vs. Paramjeet Singh in MACP No.189 of 2020
have arisen out of the same incident, one filed by widow and children and
other filed by parents and brother of the deceased. So same are ordered to
be clubbed together. Evidence shall be recorded in instant petition. To
come upon 17.05.2023 for evidence of claimant.
claimant."
7. The key objective of clubbing the suits is to avoid contradictory
judgments, save time and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The Court has
discretion to order clubbing based on factors or specific circumstances such
as the similarity of the subject matter,
matter the convenience of the parties and to
balance the interest of justice.
justice In two petitions, there is commonality of issue
regarding the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and factum of
negligence of the driver in causing the accident. For that
that, parties are to lead
same evidence and present same arguments in proof of above facts in
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082311
CR-3330
controversy.
rsy. Insofar as the disputed question of facts raised by the present
petitioner regarding the status and entitlement of the claimants of Petition
No.44/20 is concerned,
concerned these are to be adjudicated upon based on the
appraisal of evidence led by the parties. Given the respective pleadings of
the parties,, clubbing both the petitions would afford all concerned an
effective opportunity to lead evidence promptly and conveniently, further
enabling the Court
ourt to decide the core issues involved in the matter
matter.. This
would certainly mitigate the chances of passing conflicting judgments.
Keeping these material considerations in mind
mind, this Court is of the
considered view that impugned order does not suffer from any legal
infirmity, calling for any interference by this Cour
Court.
8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
9. Nonetheless, it is expected that learned trial court would make
every endeavour to decide the claim petitions pending before it promptly..
Further, it is needless
eedless to mention, parties to both the petitions shall also
assist the learned trial Court in expeditious disposal of the petitions, without
seeking any undue adjournment(s).
adjournment(s) Regarding the grievance of the
petitioners that the names
name of his counsel and witnesses were not
acknowledged in the orders Annexure P-12
P 12 and P
P-13
13 passed by the learned
trial Court and that online case status of the petition No.189 has been shown
as disposed of uncontested, the claimant
claimants may move an appropriate
application before the learned trial Court for redressal of their grievance.
Upon
n doing so, the learned trial Court is to dispose of the said application in
accordance with law.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082311
CR-3330
10. It is suffice to note that the deliberations made above were
purely in the context of the matter and not on the merits of the petitions
pending before the learned trial Court.
11. Pending applications,, if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
03.07.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
