Civil Revision No.3307 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3307 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 19, 2011 Shri Sanjay .....Petitioner v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13124-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3307 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 28.1.2011, passed by learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No.209 of 2007 titled as Smt.Munni Devi and others v. Balbir Singh and others with a prayer for setting aside the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') was filed by respondents no.2 to 7-claimants against respondent no.8-Balbir Singh, driver, present petitioner-respondent Civil Revision No.3307 of 2011(O&M) -2- no.2- owner, and respondents no.1, i.e.,respondent no.3 in claim petition, i.e., the insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e., Truck bearing registration No.HR-38H/8373 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (for short the `Tribunal'), on account of death of Rang Bahadur in the motor vehicle accident involving the said truck, which had taken place on 15.4.2006 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Balbir Singh, driver of the truck. The petition was contested by present petitioner, owner of the truck as well as insurer of the truck on all the grounds and award dated 1.6.2007 awarding Rs.9,52,280/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum was passed by learned Tribunal. It was also mentioned in the award that the first liability shall be of the Insurance Company being insurer of the vehicle and, however, Insurance Company can recover the same from the insured. Dissatisfied with the said award, present petitioner, who is owner of the vehicle, had filed FAO No.2741 of 2008 before this Court and, however, the same was dismissed by this Court on 6.10.2009 on the ground that the same was not filed within prescribed period of limitation by dismissing the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the award has become final. Respondents- claimants filed execution petition, in which payment was made by the Insurance Company and the same was also received by the claimants. An application was filed by present petitioner under Section 151 of the Code before learned Executing Court praying that operation of the impugned judgment and decree as well as execution of proceedings be stayed qua him on the ground that he wanted to file objections and that award has been passed against him only on the ground that he has not produced the route permit and that he was not having valid route permit at Civil Revision No.3307 of 2011(O&M) -3- the time of alleged accident, which he could not produce on the file due to negligence on the part of his counsel. The said application was contested by respondents and the same was dismissed by learned Executing Court on 28.1.2011. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only ground on which award has been passed against the present petitioner is that he was not having a valid route permit and, however, he was having a route permit and, however, the same was not produced due to negligence on the part of counsel for the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that the award passed against present petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, the plea is not tenable before learned Executing Court. Admittedly, the award against the present petitioner has become final. His appeal was also dismissed by this Court, though on the ground of limitation. Learned Executing Court has rightly observed that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the award and that Executing Court is bound to get the award executed. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court 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 Civil Revision No.3307 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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. 19.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge