Civil Revision No.5746 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5746 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2011 United India Insurance Company Limited .....Petitioner v. Charanjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.2.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal') in MACT case No.61-T/6.4.1993/95 titled Charanjit Kaur and other v. United India Insurance Company Limited vide which warrant for remitting amount of `77,071/- from attached account of petitioner-Insurance company was ordered to be issued. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company is that a sum of `25,000/- was deposited by petitioner- Insurance Company with this Court while filing the appeal and hence Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of any interest on the said amount of `25,000/- from the date of deposit of the same in this Court. It Civil Revision No.5746 of 2011(O&M) -2- has also been contended that respondents-decree-holders can withdraw this amount from this Court. However, this point has been duly considered by learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Appeal filed by petitioner- Insurance Company was dismissed in limine. Decree-holders were having no notice of either filing of the appeal by petitioner-Insurance Company before this Court or having deposited `25,000/- by the petitioner-Insurance Company before this Court. It was the duty of the petitioner-judgment debtor to inform the decree-holders regarding the deposit of `25,000/- before this Court so that decree holders could take steps to withdraw the same. However, no such intimation was sent by petitioner-Insurance Company to respondents-decree holders. 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 Civil Revision No.5746 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 20.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge