FAO No.362 of 2003 & -1- X-OBJECTION NO.50-CII of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.362 of 2003 & X-OBJECTION NO.50-CII of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: January 19, 2011 MRS. MANJU AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS GURMUKH SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. SANJEEV PATYAL, ADVOCATE FOR MR.ASHWANI ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. VINOD GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 - X-OBJECTOR. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the accident resulting death of a person aged 35 years. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks for permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. X-Objection No.1484-CII of 2010 2. The appeal was filed in the year 2003 and the x-objections have been filed alongwith application C.M.21483-CII of 2010 on 17.8.2010. The insurance company had been represented through a counsel at all times from FAO No.362 of 2003 & -2- X-OBJECTION NO.50-CII of 2010 the year 2003 itself. It is not seen how the x-objections could be filed after 7 years. The limitation for the x-objections shall be calculated from the date of service of notice of appeal and it cannot be filed at any time in the manner which is sought to be done. Again even in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 22 it is urged that the x-objections are filed within 30 days from the knowledge of the appeal. I do not know how knowledge of hearing is to be urged in a case when it is seen from the records that the case was admitted on 8.4.2003 and had been subsequently posted before Lok Adalat and the insurance company had appeared through counsel Sh.R.N.Singhal and even the Deputy Manager and Assistant Manager had participated in the Lok Adalat, but they had pleaded that due to financial constraints the insurance company was not in a position to compromise. At any event, the knowledge of appeal, if at all relevant, was there, even on 5.12.2006. The x-objections filed now cannot be entertained. 3. Even otherwise, the insurance company shall not be permitted to urge the issue of quantum in a case where there had been no permission granted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also sought to be contended in the grounds of objection that petition under Section 163A could not have been entertained in a case where the deceased was said to be earning an amount in excess of `40,000/-. It was a case resulting in collision between the scooter and the insured's truck and perhaps, it could have been possible for making a claim even under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I am not prepared to examine whether the petition could have been entertained in a case where the insurance company challenges only the issue of quantum at this length of time. Even at the time when the matter FAO No.362 of 2003 & -3- X-OBJECTION NO.50-CII of 2010 was before the Lok Adalat, they were only expressing difficulty for effecting settlement for an enhancement due to financial constraints and they were not urging for a relief that even the compensation awarded already was excessive. 4. I shall, therefore, see no merit in the x-objections and dismiss it as such, even apart from the rejection on the ground that it was barred by limitation. January 19, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE