FAO No.1383 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1383 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:22.07.2010 Ram Rattan and another ..Appellants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. And Others. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the appellants. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. (ORAL) CM No. 17769-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, this application is allowed and the order dated 02.07.2010 is recalled and the appeal along with other applications is restored to its original number. CM No.6946-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.1383 of 2010 The appellants who are the owners and driver of the vehicle in question have challenged the impugned award dated 29.08.2008 whereby the recovery rights for recovering the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants have been given against the appellants to the respondent-Insurance Company. In this case, notice of motion was issued to 03.05.2010 to the respondent-Insurance Company only. However, from the record, I find that there is a delay of 470 days in filing this appeal. Though, a Civil Miscellaneous Application No.6946-CII of 2010 has been filed along with FAO No.1383 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: this appeal but no notice was issued on the aforesaid application to the respondents. The only ground taken in the application for condonation of delay is that the appellants were not informed by their counsel about the passing of the award against them and they came to know about the same from the Village Patwari when the execution petition was filed by the respondent-claimants. It has been further mentioned, that appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the impugned award is also pending. However, I find that the question raised in both the appeal is entirely different. In FAO No.3158 of 2009 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the only question pending before this Court is regarding the adequacy of compensation whereas in the present appeal, the question raised is with regard to the entitlement of the respondent-Insurance Company regarding the recovery rights. It may also be seen that on merits, the learned counsel for the appellants tried to justify the stand of the appellants to the effect that they were not liable to pay any amount on the basis of a receipt issued by the Officer, Incharge of Tax Collection Point, State of Haryana, for payment of goods and Sales Tax as the aforesaid receipt cannot be taken to be a valid permission by the State of Haryana allowing the appellants for plying the vehicle in question, deeming the same as valid permit. Thus, I find no merit in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same are dismissed accordingly. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) July 22, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet