Oriental tal Insurance Comp Company Ltd v. Rohtash & Ors.), wh rer whereby the appeal of the insurer was partly allo
Case Details
CM-16912-CII of 2 RA-CR-120 of 202 FAO No. 4511 of 2 I of 2024 and 2024 in of 2002 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2024 and CM-16912-CII of 202 24 in RA-CR-120 of 2024 in of 2002 FAO No. 4511 of 20 Date of Decision: 07 : 07.11.2025 The Oriental I tal Insurance Company Ltd. Rohtash Singh ingh & Ors. Versus …Appellant nt nts …Respondents CORAM: HON ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPT UPTA Present:- Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate No.3 for the applicant-respondent No. n. Angrej Singh @ Chander Bhan. DEEPAK GUPT UPTA, J. *** The application (CM No. 16912- -CII of 2024) under Section 5 of of the Limitation tion Act seeks condonation of delay ew elay of 3847 days in filing Review Application No n No. RA-CR-120 of 2024. 2. The review is directed against the ed the order dated 11.02.2014 passed by a Co-ordin rdinate Bench of this Court in FA FAO No. 4511 of 2002(Oriental tal Insurance Comp Company Ltd. v. Rohtash & Ors.), wh rer whereby the appeal of the insurer was partly allo allowed. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In that appeal, while affirming ce ing the liability of the Insurance Company to sa to satisfy the award in favour of the eld the claimants, this Court had held that since the the driver of the offending vehicle w nd icle was not possessing a valid and effective drivin riving licence to drive the kind of rer of offending vehicle, the insurer would have a r e a right to recover the awarded amo ver amount from the owner and driver icle. of the vehicle. 4. The accident in question occurred he rred on 04.07.2000, resulting in the death of a 12 12-year-old girl, Sonia, a student of le, t of Class III. The offending vehicle, bearing registr gistration No. HR-45-5406, was drive er driven by Angrej Singh @ Chander Bhan(applicant icant herein), owned by Satpal Bhard tal hardwaj, and insured with Oriental Insurance Com Company Ltd. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 3 CM-16912-CII of 2 RA-CR-120 of 202 FAO No. 4511 of 2 I of 2024 and 2024 in of 2002 5. The claim petition filed under Sec les Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by t by the victim’s parents was allowed ms wed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karn Karnal on 01.04.2002, awarding ₹1 st, ₹1,25,000/- along with interest, holding the dri e driver, owner, and insurer jointly an ly and severally liable. 6. While the claimants filed FAO ing FAO No. 3561 of 2002 seeking enhancement ent (still pending), the insurer pre 02 preferred FAO No. 4511 of 2002 seeking exone oneration on the ground that the dr he e driver lacked a valid licence. The said appeal w al was disposed of on 11.02.2014 r’s 014, partly allowing the insurer’s appeal with rig ier. h right of recovery, as noted earlier. 7. The present review petitioner (dr er r (driver) seeks recall of the order dated 11.02.20 2.2014, asserting that he possessed at sed a valid driving licence and that he was unawa aware of the said order due to non lier non-communication by his earlier
Legal Reasoning
counsel, Mr. Yo r. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, who ay who has since passed away in May 2017. The app applicant claims that he came to on to know of the order only upon receiving sum summons dated 28.05.2024 nd n FAO No. 3561 of 2002, and in immediately th ly thereafter filed the present review he view petition, accompanied by the application for for condonation of delay. 8. The explanation offered is wholly of holly unsatisfactory and devoid of substance. The . The delay of over 11 years (3847 ins 847 days) is colossal and remains unexplained by d by any convincing reason. Mere al ion re allegation of non-communication by counsel can l cannot be a sufficient ground to inv ion invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. As per the judicial record, th uly , the applicant-driver was duly represented in d in FAO No. 4511 of 2002 by Mr. Yo for r. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for whom Mr. G.S . G.S. Gopera, Advocate appeared .e., red on the date of hearing, i.e., 11.02.2014. Th 4. The order of that date clearly recor ecords such appearance. 10. Once a litigant has engaged coun of counsel, the acts and omissions of the counsel, u el, unless amounting to fraud or mis he misconduct, are binding upon the client. Negligen ligence, inaction, or lack of diligence t a ence on the part of counsel is not a “sufficient cau cause” for condonation of inordinate inate delay. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 3 CM-16912-CII of 2 RA-CR-120 of 202 FAO No. 4511 of 2 I of 2024 and 2024 in of 2002 11. The review petitioner has not pr ow t produced any material to show that he exercis ercised due diligence to ascertain the re the outcome of the case for more than a decade ade. The ground of counsel’s demise he mise in 2017 is irrelevant since the order sought ght to be reviewed was passed in 2 th in 2014, and the counsel’s death occurred three hree years later. 12. Even on merits, the contention t a on that the petitioner possessed a valid driving li g licence was squarely dealt with ed by this Court in its order dated 11.02.2014. Th 4. The issue stood concluded after nd fter examination of evidence and findings of fa f fact recorded by the Tribunal an ew al and Appellate Court. A review petition canno nnot be used as a substitute for appe appeal or re-argument on merits. 13. The scope of review under Order to der XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to cases where th re there is (i) discovery of new and hin and important evidence not within the applicant’s ant’s knowledge despite due diligenc he gence, (ii) an error apparent on the face of record ord, or (iii) any other sufficient reas of reason analogous thereto. None of these condition itions are satisfied in the present cas t case. 14. The plea of “valid licence” is not n ion ot new. Hence, the review petition also fails on me n merits. 15. Consequently, it is found that th r a t the explanation furnished for a delay of 3847 847 days is patently inadequate and nt and does not constitute “sufficient cause” within hin the meaning of Section 5 of the ion the Limitation Act. The application for condonatio ation of delay (CM No. 16912-CII-202 2024) is accordingly dismissed. 16. As a consequence, the Review App is Application No. RA-CR-120-2024 is also dismissed sed, both as barred by limitation and and also being devoid of merit. 07.11.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 3