FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 8.12.2009 National Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Versus Ajmer Kaur & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.5. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.28605-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Affidavit of N.S.R.C Prasad, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata is taken on record. FAO No.3782 of 2008 This appeal was filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. It is the grouse of the appellant that application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellant was not decided by the Tribunal despite repeated requests by its counsel, Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record an affidavit of Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate. However, this Court found the aforesaid averments contrary to the record FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) 2 and in these circumstances, comments of the Presiding Officer of the learned Tribunal were called. Notice was also issued to Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate to file additional affidavit, if any. Comments of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal were received and according to these comments, the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not pressed by Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/company at any stage. In view of the aforesaid comments and in the absence of any further material on record to controvert the same, notice was issued to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the appellant-company to appear in person and to explain the conduct of the appellant for taking a false stand. Vide order dated 5.11.2009, the CMD of the appellant- company was directed to appear before this court on 30.11.2009. Civil Misc. application No.26925-CII of 2009 was filed by the appellant-company seeking exemption of the CMD, which was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2009. Thereafter, another Civil Misc. application No.27580-CII of 2009 was filed for exemption of the CMD from appearance before this Court on 30.11.2009 by the appellant-company. The same was also rejected. On 30.11.2009, the aforesaid CMD was not present though an affidavit dated 28.11.2009 sworn by him at Chennai was filed in the court seeking exemption from his appearance. Vide order dated 30.11.2009, the aforesaid CMD was given another opportunity to appear before this Court on 8.12.2009. Today, Shri N.S.R.C. Prasad, CMD of the appellant-company is present in court and has tendered his unconditional apology before this court and has also admitted the fact that the ground raised before this court on the basis of the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was inaccurate, however, the aforesaid error was described to FAO No.3782 of 2008(O&M) 3 be a bona fide mistake. The unconditional apology tendered by the CMD of the appellant, who is also present in Court, is accepted. It has further been assured on his behalf to this Court that corrective/remedial measures will be taken to see that such errors/mistakes as have been committed in this case may not occur again and while filing the appeal on behalf of the Company every endeavour shall be made and it will be ensured that averments made in the appeal are not contrary to the record. In view of the aforesaid apology and assurance given to this Court, no further action is required in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that he is not pressing the arguments based upon the fact that application of the appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not decided by the Tribunal. Since this appeal was filed challenging the impugned award only on the question of quantum of compensation and since there was no permission granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and further that the appellant has not pressed the argument as raised earlier, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. December 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE