IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CR-31-2025 in FAO-2816-2023 Reserved on: 05.08.2026 Pronounced on : 18.08.2026 M/s Agro Engineering Works and another ....Applicant-Appellant No.1 V/s United India Insurance Co. Limited & others .…Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate and Mr. Lovish Jain, Advocate, for applicant-appellant No.1. Ms. Brea Sandhu, Advocate, for applicant-appellant No.2. Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate, for the non-applicant-respondent No.1 (Insurance Co.) *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. The instant review application instituted under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) seeks review of judgment/order dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure A-1), passed by this Court in FAO-2816-2023. 2. Briefly put, on 30.03.2018, one Rohit Sahal expired in a motor vehicular accident. His widow, two minor children and parents instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as “the MACT”) seeking compensation of Rs.3 crores. Their case was that the accident as a result of which Rohit Sahal expired had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tata 407 bearing VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -2- Regn. No.HR38-M-5468 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver Tejpal and owned by the present applicant. 3. The said claim petition was partly allowed. Compensation of Rs.1,86,38,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation was ordered to be paid by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle since it was found that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance without a route permit. However, it was directed that the insurance company (non-applicant-respondent No.1 herein) would, in the first instance, satisfy the award and would later have a right to recover the awarded amount from the insured along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision, the applicants instituted FAO No.2816 of 2023. Vide judgment/order dated 15.09.2023, this Court dismissed the said appeal and upheld the decision of the MACT. 5. Aggrieved by the said decision the applicants instituted SLP(C) No.22459 of 2024 which was decided by the Apex Court vide order dated 27.01.2025; “1. After the matter was heard for some time, Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel, under instructions, submits that petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to approach the High Court by way of filing review petition. Liberty as prayed for, is granted. 2. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought for. 3. All contentions are left open. 4. It shall be open for the parties to place on record additional material, if so required and desired. 5. Further, liberty is also granted to the parties to approach this Court should the need so arise subsequently. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -3- 6. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, the compensation so awarded already stands disbursed to the claimant(s). Hence, the issue of determination of compensation is no longer res integra. The only issue being as to whether the liability of compensation is to be borne by the insurer or the insured. 7. At this stage, Mr. Nagamathu, learned Senior Counsel submits that the insurer has preferred proceedings for recovery of the money. 8. We direct that till the finalization of the review petition, such proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. 9. Needless to add, if the petitioners wish to prefer the review petition within a period of six weeks from today, the issue of limitation would not stand in way of adjudication on merits.” 6. Under the circumstance, the present review application has been filed. 7. The case set up in the review application is that once the applicant had got the offending vehicle insured from the non-applicant respondent No.1 and had duly filled in the proposal form, it was the responsibility of the insurance company to have verified all the documents before issuing a policy of insurance. It is the case of the applicant that in fact the insurance policy was issued after verification of all documents including the route permit. It is the case of the applicant that the route permit dated 04.08.2015 was valid for a period of 5 years i.e. up to August 2020. It has been averred that RW1 (Balraj) who had been examined by the non- applicant respondent No.1 had, in his cross examination, conceded that on the said route permit , there was a stamp of the concerned RTO and the signature of the competent authority. It is also the case of the applicant that RW1 (Balraj) failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove that the route permit in question had not been issued to the offending vehicle. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -4- 7.1 It is the case of the applicants that the record produced by RW1 (Balraj) was not sufficient to prove that the route permit had not been issued qua the offending vehicle. 7.2 It is also the case of the applicants that the insurance company had failed to lead any evidence before the MACT that the applicants had not submitted complete documents at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. 8. No reply has been filed and learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that he would straightaway address arguments. 9. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. 10. It was strenuously urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment/order dated 15.09.2023 is required to be reviewed. Arguments were addressed on the lines of the pleadings and do not, accordingly, require a detailed reference. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljinder Kaur and others, 2020 ACJ 544, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Ashok Singh and others, 2021 ACJ 1128, M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 881, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 and Rajesh Poojary v. Rajesh and another, 2020 ACJ 489. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondent No.1 (insurance company) submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting a review of the order. Learned Counsel referred to the statement of RW1 (Balraj) and the documents produced by him and submitted that the said evidence was rightly considered by the MACT and then by this Court. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -5- 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 13. If one closely peruses the order of the Apex Court, it emerges that after addressing arguments, learned counsel for the applicant made a submission that he would file a review application, which was accepted. It, therefore, appears that the Apex Court was also not agreeing to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 14. Be that as it may, since the Apex Court permitted the applicant to move a review application and kept all questions open, this Court is duty bound to examine the matter accordingly. 15. No fresh evidence or documents have been produced. 16. Broadly, twofold arguments have been addressed. The first argument is that when a proposal form is filled, which had duly been filled by the applicant, all documents had been annexed, including the route permit and it was the duty of the insurance company to have got them verified. This argument is found to be devoid of merit, since there is no evidence on record to show that such a proposal form had been filled. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common knowledge that all documents are not verified before the issuance of a policy and once a proposal is received for insuring a vehicle , the relevant documents are annexed and the insurance policy is issued. This argument is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and is rejected. 17. The second argument which has been addressed is that no reliance can be placed upon the statement of RW1 (Balraj). This argument is also devoid of merit and is rejected. 18. The onus to prove that there had been a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance was upon the insurance company (issue No.7). The applicants had only tendered into evidence, the relevant VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -6- documents i.e. the insurance policy, driving licence, route permit, etc. However, no oral evidence was led. The insurance company summoned RW1 (Balraj) from the office of the RTA, Faridabad. He produced the records pertaining to route permit No.504/ HDV/2015. This was the route permit claimed to have been issued to the applicants. He stated that as per the records maintained with the RTO, this permit had been issued in respect of vehicle bearing No.HR38-U-7318 and was valid from 29.07.2015 to 27.07.2020. The name of the permit holder was stated to be one Century NF Casting. The register was produced as Annexure R7 which contained this entry. He also stated in so many words that the permit, as per their record, , was not in respect of vehicle bearing No.HR38-M-5468. He also stated that the entry of vehicle No.HR38-M-5468 was not mentioned in their records. In the cross-examination, he conceded that whenever any route permit of any vehicle is issued, the insurance company records/policy is perused and is kept in records. Accordingly, his examination was deferred to enable him to bring the set record. However, when he appeared again, he informed that the said record had been weeded out in terms of government instructions dated 13.07.2021 (Ex.R8). Entry No.4 of Ex.R8 talks about permits. The rationale beyond the same appears to be the voluminous record because so many vehicles are registered and permits are granted. Even if this Court does not go into the said question, since it is the decision of the concerned administrative authority and not for this Court to comment upon, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the witness who produced the record and the communication. This Court would also not venture into commenting upon as to whether such a decision was rightly taken or not. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -7- 19. Further, merely because the witness conceded that there was the stamp of RTO and signature of an officer would not prove the genuineness of the document. On the face of it, there was a stamp on that document and it had apparently been signed by the concerned RTO, but the record pertaining to the same was not available, as a result of which the MACT rightly held that the existence of a route permit was not proved. I have perused the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljinder Kaur and others (supra), the insurance company had issued the policy without obtaining any fitness certificate. It was held that under the circumstances, the said issue could not be raised at a subsequent stage. The said judgment would not at all be applicable to the facts of the present case because it is nobody's case that the insurance company had earlier not insisted upon a route permit and that only when the accident took place was the issue raised. Further, there is no evidence that in the present case, the insurance policy had been issued without there being any fitness certificate. 20. The judgment in the Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Ashok Singh and others (supra) is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment in the case of M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, is on an entirely different point so is the judgment of the Apex Court in the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, which largely deals with the issue of a driving licence. 21. Having examined the matter afresh from all angles, this Court does not find any reason to review the judgment/order dated 15.09.2023 passed by this Court. 22. The instant review application is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-31-2025 -8- Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE Pronounced on: 18.08.2026 vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIKAS CHANDER 2026.08.19 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document