Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chandauli And Others - WRIT - C No. 70910 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5917 (17 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70910 of 2005

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited


Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge Chandauli & Ors.

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

An accident had taken place on 7.9.2002. Claimant-respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a claim petition against the owner and driver of the vehicle in question as well as the petitioner, who was the insurer of the vehicle. An award was passed on 31.1.2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and since it was found that the vehicle was insured, the petitioner Insurance Company was found liable to make the payment. It was at this stage after passing of the Award that the petitioner Company got the investigation done and according to it the insurance policy was ante-dated and as such the petitioner claimed that it would not be liable to make the payment of the amount under the Award.

It is the statutory obligation of the petitioner to have satisfied the Award within thirty days of the passing of the same. Instead, the petitioner started the investigation with regard to the insurance of the vehicle after the passing of the Award and on the basis of the same, filed a review application on 27.10.2005, after nearly nine months of the Award. Along with the review application the petitioner also filed an application for staying the operation of the Award. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the writ petition for filing the review application after such a long period. It has also not been stated as to why if the petitioner was so aggrieved, had not filed an appeal challenging the said Award. Instead, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the recovery certificate dated 6.8.2005 passed in pursuance of the Award dated 31.1.2005.

In my view this writ petition would not be maintainable as once the Award has been allowed to become final and the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the same, the consequences would follow and the recovery certificate has accordingly been issued in pursuance thereof.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.