Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Aggarwal vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr on 15 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005180
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2099-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 15.01.2025
Varinder Aggarwal ... Appellant(s)
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Mona Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-7247-C-2022
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 72 days in
filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 72 days in
filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
RSA-2099-2022
3. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.2-
appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed by
the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021 passed by the
First Appellate Court.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1-Insurance Company filed the present suit under Order 37 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of ₹2,56,284/-. It was
the case set up that defendant No.2 (appellant herein) was the owner of truck
bearing registration No.PIB-9370 and defendant No.1 (respondent No.2
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005180
RSA-2099-2022 (O&M) -2-
herein) was the driver of the truck. The said truck was insured with the
plaintiff-respondent No.1. The truck struck against a cyclist who was going
to his school on 08.02.1993 at about 08.40 am causing him multiple injuries.
The cyclist succumbed to his injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending truck. A claim petition was filed by the parents of
the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
District Judge, Faridkot who vide award dated 06.10.2003 awarded a
compensation of ₹54,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f.
29.04.1993. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 challenged the same before this
Court by preferring an appeal bearing No.1549 of 1996. Cross-objection
No.31-C/II of 1998 were also filed and the matter was remanded to redecide
issue No.4. In the first round, the Insurance Company (plaintiff-respondent
No.1 herein) was held liable to pay the amount. The matter was re
adjudicated upon and the Insurance Company (plaintiff-respondent No.1
herein) was given recovery rights. In the execution the amount was paid by
the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Insurance Company and, hence, the suit for
recovery. On notice, defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) filed a written
statement raising various preliminary objections. Defendant No.2 (appellant
herein) raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, the suit being
barred by limitation. It was admitted that the insurance policy was issued by
the plaintiff-respondent No.1. However, it was stated that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Replication was filed. On
the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover
₹2,56,284/- from the defendant as per judgment dated
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005180
RSA-2099-2022 (O&M) -3-
6.10.2003 passed by the court of Sh. Gurdev Singh,
MACT Faridkot ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is
entitled to interest on the said amount and at what rate ?
OPP
3. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to
try and decide the suit ? OPD
4. Whether the suit has been filed within limitation ?
OPP
5. Whether the suit has not been filed through
competent authorized person ? OPD
6. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012
decreed the suit for recovery of ₹1,42,421/- alongwith interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of payment of the said amount till filing of the suit and
6% per annum from filing of the suit till actual realization. Aggrieved by the
same, an appeal was preferred which appeal was also dismissed by the First
Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021. Hence, the
present regular second appeal.
6. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the
defendant No.2-appellant is that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction
and, hence, the award passed by the Tribunal was not sustainable in law and
therefore the suit for recovery should have been dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant No.2-
appellant.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005180
RSA-2099-2022 (O&M) -4-
8. In the present case the award dated 06.10.2003 passed by the
Tribunal was not challenged by the defendant No.2-appellant herein as
affirmed by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2-appellant. The
learned counsel for the defendant No.2-appellant is seeking to challenge the
findings returned by the Tribunal in the award dated 06.10.2003 passed by
the MACT Faridkot. Having chosen not to challenge the award, in the
present suit which had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Insurance
Company for recovery of the amount, no challenge can be laid to the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
9. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the judgments
and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being
devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
15.01.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
