Skip to content


Shish Pal Sharma Son of Ram Kumar Resident of Village Vs. United India Assurance Company Ltd. 4 New Colony Above - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantShish Pal Sharma Son of Ram Kumar Resident of Village
RespondentUnited India Assurance Company Ltd. 4 New Colony Above
Excerpt:
.....had a driving licence but what was reasoned by the tribunal was that the vehicle did not have a route permit. all that, section 149 permits the insurer to state in defence is that the purpose of the permit was breached and it had been need for the purpose other than for which it was given. the counsel argues that the route permit is available with him but i will not go into it but take the reasoning adopted by the tribunal as not tenable and hold that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured under the contract of policy and the absence of a particular route permit cannot absolve the liability of the insurance company and deny the owner the right of indemnity. the provision for a right of recovery granted to the insured is not tenable in law. it is set aside. the appeal.....
Judgment:

FAO No.4969 of 2012(O&M) [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4969 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:

06. 02.2013 Shish Pal Sharma son of Ram Kumar, resident of village Kamalpur, Tehsil and District Rewari and another..Appellants Versus United India Assurance Company Ltd., 4 New Colony, above State Bank of India, Gurgaon and another..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN Present:Mr.SK Yadav, Advocate for Mr.RD Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.DR Bansal, Advocate, for respondent 1.

Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent 2.

***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not?.

NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.

NO K.

KANNAN, J.

(Oral) 1.

There is a delay of 1055 days in filing the appeal.

The appellants have filed the case only after the execution process was levied.

They had allowed themselves to be set ex parte although they had been served through summons and filed their statements also.

The delay is quite inexplicable but having regard to the fact that the case relates to the pure legal issues, I will condone the delay on payment of cost of `2,500/- to the respondents.

FAO No.4969 of 2012(O&M) [2].2.

The appeal is heard with the consent of both the parties.

In this case, there is no denying the fact that the driver had a driving licence but what was reasoned by the Tribunal was that the vehicle did not have a route permit.

All that, Section 149 permits the insurer to state in defence is that the purpose of the permit was breached and it had been need for the purpose other than for which it was given.

The counsel argues that the route permit is available with him but I will not go into it but take the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal as not tenable and hold that the insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured under the contract of policy and the absence of a particular route permit cannot absolve the liability of the insurance company and deny the owner the right of indemnity.

The provision for a right of recovery granted to the insured is not tenable in law.

It is set aside.

The appeal by the owner is allowed.

6th February, 2013 ( K.

KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //