2025:HHC:28905 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.257 of 2021 Decided on: 27.08.2025 Shri Naresh Kumar Mahant … Petitioner Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.09.2021, passed by learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, the execution petition preferred by the Insurance Company against the present petitioner has been disposed of as under:- “The present execution petition has been filed for the recovery of the amount against the JD. It has been prayed that the JD is a resident of District Kullu, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Learned counsel for the Dh has prayed that a certificate for recovery of the amount as an arrear of land revenue be issued in terms of Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prayer is allowed. A certificate under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act be issued to Collector Kullu to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. File after needful be consigned to the record room.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28905 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in this case what happened was that learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition passed an Award by holding that the liability was to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the petitioner as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. In appeal, in FAO No.302 of 2009, the petitioner herein succeeded and this Court while allowing the appeal held that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.4 are set aside and it is held that the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, rather he was travelling alongwith his goods. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that this order passed by this Court in the FAO was assailed by the Insurance Company before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of Annexure P-2 whereas on one hand observed that there was no reason to entertain the petition and it dismissed the Special Leave Petition, however, it simultaneously reserved liberty to the Insurance Company to initiate the proceedings for recovery of the amount paid by it to the claimant from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that rather than proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law, an execution was filed for the recovery of the said amount in which objections were filed by the petitioner that the execution was not maintainable against the petitioner and the Award was also not to be 3 2025:HHC:28905 made good by the petitioner. However, learned Executing Court rather than deciding the objections of the petitioner on merit went on to hold to dispose of the execution petition in terms of the impugned order, which has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner as the issues raised in the objections filed to the execution petition have not been decided on merit by the learned Executing Court. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court as the matter still can be agitated by the petitioner after the issuance of the appropriate certificate by the Collector before the Authority concerned. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 5. With regard to the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel qua the adjudication of the FAO by this Court as well as the adjudication of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the observations contained in the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is not making any observation. 6. Suffice to say that there is appears to be merit in the 4 2025:HHC:28905 contention of the learned Senior Counsel that when objections were preferred against the execution petition filed by the Insurance Company, then least that was expected from the learned Executing Court was an adjudication thereupon. In other words, a reasoned order should have been passed by the learned Executing Court ether way while disposing of the execution petition and in the light of the fact that order dated 28.09.2021 demonstrates that the objections filed by the petitioner were not dealt with and no order merit has been passed thereupon, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this petition is allowed. Order dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Executing Court with the direction that the objections filed by the petitioner to the execution proceedings be decided as expeditiously as possible and in all circumstances, before 30.11.2025. The parties through Counsel are directed to appear before learned Executing Court on 15.09.2025. 8. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27, 2025 (Rishi)