CR No. 1959 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1959 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Naresh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for Ms.Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of CR Nos.1959 & 1960 of 2010 titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Naresh & Ors., and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Anoop Singh & Ors., as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The petitioner/Insurance company has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 9.10.2009 on issue No.5 i.e. the issue framed on the pleadings of the appellant which reads as under:- “5. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was without a CR No. 1959 of 2010 2 valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident, as alleged. If so to what effect? OPR-3” Learned Tribunal decided issue No.5 against the petitioner by recording as under:- “ It has transpired from the statement of Neeraj Kumar Executive Clerk to the Court of Learned CJM, Gurgaon PW 2 that Ombir son of Ram Niwas was holding driving licence and his licence is attached with the criminal file and this licence is valid up to 27.10.2008 and is issued by Licencing Authority, Rewari. It is also stated by this witness that the holder of the licence was authorized to drive LTC and HTV. Photocopy of the driving licence is Ex.P2. This licence is not proved fake or fictitious in any manner. Statement of Mahabir Singh clerk of DTO Office, Rewari RW 1 also does not in any manner help the respondent/insurance company. It is also stated by Mahender Singh owner of the offending vehicle RW 2 that he has produced driving licence of Ombir Ex.R3 and verification report of the driving licence Ex.R.4. Thus insurance company cannot escape its liability. It is revealed that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. So this issue is accordingly decided against the insurance company and in favour of the petitioners.” CR No. 1959 of 2010 3 The appeal against the award is barred under the Act, in view of meager compensation. Revision petition, prima facie, therefore, would not be competent, as the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to overcome statutory bar, unless the order passed by the learned Tribunal is held to be totally perverse or arbitrary. Reading of the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal shows, that the findings were based on appreciation of evidence, as the petitioner failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle, did not have a valid driving licence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Insurance Company, had examined the clerk of DTO Office, Rewari. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the evidence led proved the fact, that the driver of the offending vehicle was competent only to drive LTV/HTV, vehicle but was not competent to drive the passenger carrying vehicle. However, no such plea was raised before the learned Tribunal. It is not open to the petitioner, to raise such plea for the first time in revision, specially when there is statutory bar to file an appeal. Consequently, finding no merit, both the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 25.03.2010 Judge rp