S. No. 43 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 176/2022 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Dr. Dilip Pandita …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Dar, Advocate Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Rafiquee and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. M. Amin Tibatbakal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 29.10.2025 1. A claim petition was filed by Mumtaz Hussain and others against owner of offending vehicle, namely Mushtaq Ahmad Rafiquee (respondent no.1 herein) and New India Insurance Company Ltd. (petitioner herein) seeking compensation on account of death Niaz Ahmed. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 31.01.2006, absolved the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the owner and directed the owner to pay compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/- along with interest at 6% in favour of the claimants. 3. The aforesaid award was challenged by the owner before this Court in an appeal. During its pendency, parties decided to settle the matter amicably and accordingly in terms of compromise arrived at between parties, the compensation was reduced from Rs.5,60,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, which the owner agreed to pay to the claimants. The appeal was, accordingly, disposed of on 21.10.2011 on the basis of the said compromise. It is stated that the said amount has been duly paid. 4. While disposing of the appeal, a liberty was given to the owner – respondent no.1 herein, to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount from the insurance company, if so advised, and it was observed that the question of limitation would not stand in his way. 5. It is clear that while deciding the appeal, this Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the award passed by the Tribunal, which had absolved the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the owner for the compensation payable. No material has been placed on record to show that the insurance company had agreed to indemnify the owner. However, liberty had been given to the owner to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery. 6. It is further noted that the review petition, being RPC no.8/2011, filed by the owner was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 19.11.2012. The court observed that the appeal was wholly misuse of the process of court. After having failed in his attempt in review as well as in LPA, owner approached the Court seeking recovery of the amount paid by him to the claimants from the insurance company. 7. On the application of respondent no.1 seeking execution and recovery of the amount, the Tribunal is stated to have issued directions asking petitioner/Insurance Company to pay the amount. This is how the appellant Insurance Company is before this Court with instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal, which had passed the award, had absolved the insurance company from its liability on the ground that there had been violations of the terms of the insurance policy. The findings of Tribunal were challenged by owner in an appeal, but he entered into compromise with claimants on his own and decided to pay compensation slashed to Rs. 5.00 lacs, which resulted in disposal of appeal with liberty to owner to seek recovery for which owner was required to file appropriate proceedings before the competent court of law. RPC and LPA filed by owner failed. Thus findings given by Tribunal remained intact. 9. The Executing Court appears to have fallen in error by proceeding in the matter, asking insurance company to pay the amount without it being proved that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This fact was required to be taken note of by the Executing Court before which the owner has initiated the proceedings. 10. In view of above, petitioner is right in seeking exercise of powers under Article 227 so as to prevent miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as Article 227 empowers High Courts with supervisory authority over all Subordinate Courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction, to oversee procedural correctness, to ensure functioning of Subordinate Courts and tribunals within their authority and do not transgress legal bounds. 11. If that being so, proceedings being not in accordance with law, therefore, Order dated 24.04.2017 alongwith other ancillary directions passed from time to time for depositing the amount in terms of Order dated 21.10.2011 in ClMA No. 17/2008, are quashed. 12. Disposed of. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 29.10.2025 Shabroz