Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Nitin Kumar And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 16094 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Nitin Kumar And Ors on 3 September, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994
    21994-2017 (O&M).                                        -1-




           IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                          CHANDIGARH


206

                                           CWP--21994-2017 (O&M).
                                           Date of Decision: 03.09.2024.


RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

                                                                      .. Petitioner


                   Versus

NITIN KUMAR AND OTHERS

                                                                   ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present:     Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate,
             M
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocate, (Legal
             M                            (Legal-aid-counsel)
             for the respondents.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner-Insurance Insurance Company has challenged d the order

dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) P 1) passed by the Presiding residing Officer, Daily

Lok Adalat, Rewari whereby the execution petition filed by the petitioner-

Insurance Company has been disposed of in view of the settlement arrived

at to pay Rs.2,00,000/-

Rs.2,00,000/ as full and final settlement against the recovery of

Rs.2,95,281/-- along with interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari.

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994 21994-2017 (O&M). -2-

2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-

Insurance Company contends that the proforma respondent No.3 had filed a

claim petition i.e. MACT Case No.154 of 2010 titled as 'Sunil Kumar Vs.

Nitin Kumar and others', which was decided by the Motor A Accident ccident Claims

Tribunal, Rewari vide award dated 08.09.2011 directing payment of a sum

of Rs.2,79,019/-

Rs.2,79,019/ along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing

of the claim petition till realization and granting a right to the petitioner-

Insurance Company to recover the same from respondent No.2 therein

(proforma respondent No.3 herein) being owner of the insured vehicle vehicle, on

account of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy with

regard to the driving license. It is submitted that dissatisfied with the said

award, the petitioner-Insurance petitioner Company preferred an FAO No.1914 of

2012 titled as 'Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Sunil Kumar

and others', ', seeking exoneration from the fastened liability liability. He contends

that an execution execution had been filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company

before the Executing Court and that the impugned order was passed on

20.02.2017. He contends that the petitioner petitioner-Insurance Company never

consented for settlement of the execution proceedings and that it is not

bound by the same.

3 Learned legal-aid-counsel legal counsel appointed by this Court Court, while

defending the case on behalf of the respondents respondents, contends that the

petitioner-Insurance Insurance Company had already initiated recovery proceedings

against the judgment debtor and it was during the course of said execution

proceedings for recovery of the amount already paid to the decree holder

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994 21994-2017 (O&M). -3-

that the settlement was arrived at through the counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner-Insurance petitioner Company.. She places reliance upon the

impugned order dated 20.02.2017 which is extracted as under:

under:-

"File taken up today in Daily Lok Adalat. The present application has been moved by the applicant applicant-Insurance Insurance company for recovery of the amount of award paid by it to the petitioner of claim petition No. 154 of 2010 titled Sunil Kumar Versus Nitin Kumar and others others. The respondents-JDs JDs have agreed to make the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/ 2,00,000/-towards towards full and final claim of the applicant applicant-Insurance company. The respondents/JDs falls within the category of BPL family. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-

1,00,000/ has already been paid by them on 19.01.2017, Today an amount of Rs. 50,000/ 50,000/- has been paid in cash which has been received by learned couns counsll for applicant/Insurance company. The remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/ has been agreed to be paid by the respondents/JDs to 50,000/-

the applicant/Insurance company by 07.03.2017 against receipt. It is further ordered that in case the respondents/JDs fail to make the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/ by the aforesaid date i.e. 07.03.2017, the applicant 50,000/- applicant-

insurance company would be entitled to recover the entire remaining outstanding amount.

amount. The attached motor-cycle cycle no.

HR HR-43A-3834 3834 is ordered to be relea released sed from attachment. The concerned SHO PS Kosli is directed to release the motor motor- cycle to its registered owner. Release order of motor motor-cycle cycle be issued.

The execution petition stands disposed of accordingly.

accordingly."

(emphasis supplied))

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994 21994-2017 (O&M). -4-

4 Relying on the above, she contends that the specific offer of

the judgment debtor to make a payment of Rs.2 lakhs was made to the

counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Insurance Company followed by an act of

receiving of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/ on the same day, which clearly shows that there

was a consent by the counsel appearing for the petitioner-Insurance Insurance

Company.. There was also an acknowledgment of Rs.1 lakh having already

been paid by the judgment debtor to the petitioner petitioner-Insurance Company on

19.01.2017. She contends contends that the settlement is well established from the

conduct of the counsel and is well reflected in the order passed by the Daily

Lok Adalat, dalat, Rewari in the execution proceedings. She places reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matt matter of Shrimati

Jamilabai Abdul Kadar v. Shankarlal Gulabchand and others reported as

AIR 1975 SC 2202.

2202 The relevant paragraph of the same is extracted as

under:-

"24. While we are not prepared to consider in this case whether an advocate or pleader is liable to legal action in case of deviance or negligence, we must uphold the actual, though implied, authority of a pleader which is a generic expression including all legal practitioners as indicated in Section 2(15) CPC to act by way of compromising a ca case se in which he is engaged even without specific consent from his client, subject undoubtedly to two overriding considerations:

considerations:-

( ) he must act in good faith and for the benefit of his client;

(i) otherwise the power fails

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994 21994-2017 (O&M). -5-

( ) it is prudent and proper to consult his client and take his

(ii) consent if there is time and opportunity. In any case, if there is any instruction to the contrary or withdrawal of authority, the implicit power to compromise in the pleader will fall to the ground. We need hardly emphasize that the Bar must sternly screen to extirpate the black-sheep black sheep among them, for Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, if the profession is to command the confidence of the community and the Court."

5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respect respective ive

parties and have also gone through the documents appended along with the

present petition with their able assistance.

6 Insurance Company before this Court has raised T petitioner-Insurance The

a challenge to the order passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, Rewari, in the

presence of counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It is

specifically noticed by the Presiding Officer that JD ha had offered to make a

payment of Rs.2 lakhs towards the total amount of Rs.2,95, Rs.2,95,281/-, for which

the award had ha been passed and that an amount of Rs.1 lakh had already

been paid by them, them prior to the settlement. A further amount of Rs.50,000/ Rs.50,000/-

was paid on the date of order itself with an undertaking to pay the

remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-

Rs.50,000/ by 07.03.2017 against receipt. The ffact act of

acceptance of the said amount and lack of objection or protest to the offer

made by the judgment debtor for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to towards wards final

settlement of the claim shows that there was at least an oral agreement, on

the date of proceedings itself, itself and the petitioner petitioner-Insurance Company had

agreed to accept the offer towards full and final satisfaction of its claim..

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994 21994-2017 (O&M). -6-

There is also no material on record before this Court that the power of

attorney executed on behalf of the petitioner petitioner-Insurance Company did id not

authorize him to enter into any settlement for and on behalf of the

petitioner-Insurance Insurance Company.

Company. Further, there is also no material on the file

of this Court that any proceedings had ha been initiated by the petitioner-

Insurance Company against the counsel who represented the petitioner-

Insurance Company in the execution proceedings. Hence, it is a simpliciter

unilateral denial of the acts done by the Advocate Advocate, in the best interest of the

petitioner-Insurance Insurance Company.

Company. Any such unilateral withdrawal is

impermissible. An act done by an Advocate in Court Court, under a power of

attorney executed in his favour, is an act as an agent and the petitioner-

Insurance Company is bound by the acts of its agents unless it is established

on record that the said said act suffers from inherent illegality. In any case, even

if such a clause is established, the entitlement of the principal is only to seek

indemnification from the agent from whom the loss is so occasioned and

cannot press upon his rights against the consumer.

consumer.

7 The petitioner-Insurance Insurance Company has not placed on record

even the statement of the counsel recorded by the Lok Adalat. It is not even

its case that no such statement was recorded. T The petitioner-Insurance Insurance

Company has thus chosen to withhold the said documents from this Court

which could have established whether the Advocate was authorized to enter

into settlement and also as to whether the settlement was also got recorded

or not. The petitioner-Insurance petitioner Company hhas as not even placed on record

any affidavit of the advocate representing the Insurance Company before

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114617

CWP-21994 21994-2017 (O&M). -7-

the Executing Court to allege that the order does not record correct

proceedings or that there was no settlement.

8 Under the given circumstances, I find that there are no

sufficient circumstances on the basis whereof, this Court may prima facie

hold that the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Daily

Lok Adalat, Rewari, suffers from an illegality or impropriety. The case

would ratherr fall under the ratio of the judgment cited by the Legal Legal-aid-

counsel. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The order dated

20.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) P passed by the P Presiding residing Officer, Daily Lok

Adalat, is upheld.

           upheld


September 03,
          0 2024.                 (VINOD
                                   VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora                                  JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

7 of 7