Civil Revision No.3828 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3828 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 28, 2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited .....Petitioner v. Ami Chand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15012-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3828 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 22.4.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (hereinafter to be referred as `Tribunal') vide which application, Annexure P2, moved on behalf of petitioner-Insurance Company for setting aside ex parte proceedings dated 22.4.2009 and ex parte award dated 11.2.2010, Annexure P3 was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for claiming compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') was filed by Civil Revision No.3828 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondents-claimants in respect of death of Raman Kumar, which has taken place in a road side accident, involving vehicle No.PB-11-1432(I), which was owned and driven by respondent no.3 and was insured with present petitioner-Insurance Company, on the date of accident. FIR regarding the accident was lodged on the very next day of the occurrence. Petitioner- Insurance Company was also impleaded as a party. Notice was duly served upon it. Despite that none appeared for the petitioner-Insurance Company. Hence, it was rightly proceeded ex parte by learned Tribunal and an ex parte award was passed against petitioner-Insurance Company vide order dated 11.2.2010, Annexure P3. When execution petition was filed by respondents-claimants, the present application for setting aside ex parte proceedings and ex parte award under Order IX Rules 7 & 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by present petitioner-Insurance Company by admitting receipt of summons. However, plea was taken that the summons were misplaced in the Regional Office and hence, nobody could appear on behalf of the Insurance Company. Plea was not accepted by learned Tribunal and hence, the application was dismissed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company that nobody could appear on behalf of the petitioner- Insurance Company as the summons were misplaced due to negligence of some official of the petitioner-Insurance Company. However, learned Tribunal by passing the impugned order observed that even the official, who had received the summons had not been examined and no other official of petitioner-Insurance company was also examined to prove that any proceedings were initiated for dispatch of summons to the Head Office, as Civil Revision No.3828 of 2011(O&M) -3- claimed. Sufficient reasons have been given by learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the fact that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident is not disputed. In the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings and ex parte award, no plea has been taken as to what was the defence available to petitioner-Insurance Company. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge