FAO No. 2345 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.7.2010 (1) FAO No. 2345 of 2010 (O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant. v. Mrs. Rabina and others ... Respondents. (2) Civil Revision No. 3239 of 2010 (O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Petitioner. v. Mohammad Kasim and others .. Respondents. (3) Civil Revision No. 3240 of 2010 (O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Petitioner. v. Mohammad Iliyas alias Ilyas and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. R. S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 2345 of 2010. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned one appeal and two revisions filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Truck Court, Nuh, whereby a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively, have been granted as compensation to the claimants. Though learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to argue the case on merits stating that there was no insurance policy on record, however, considering the fact that the amount involved in all the three cases is merely Rs. 25,000/- and to prosecute the cases, the Insurance Company must have spent more than the amount involved, besides spending valuable time. This type of avoidable litigation is flooding the courts. Before taking decision to file an appeal or initiate any legal proceedings the parties are to act responsibly by taking into consideration FAO No. 2345 of 2010 [2] the amount involved in the litigation, the time and money likely to be spent by both the parties. Such type of avoidable litigation certainly results in delaying the decision of other important cases in the court, which may require urgent consideration. Further as is evident from the findings recorded on issue No. 3, the Insurance Company had not been able to prove that the insurance cover note produced by the claimants on record was a fabricated document as the letter to that effect (Annexure R2) was not proved in accordance with law. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal as well as revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.7.2010 mk