HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … RP no.77/2023 Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Pronounced on: 01.08.2025 Feroz Ahmad Aga and another …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr Lone Altaf, Advocatae Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others ……Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Review of judgement dated 22nd June 2021, passed by this Court in MA no.18/2018 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Akeel Nazir and others, is sought for by petitioners (respondents 3&4 in appeal) on the grounds made mention of in the instant petition. 2. Heard and considered. 3. Counsel for petitioners would say that offending vehicle was having a valid national permit on the date of accident which fact was not brought by Insurance Company to the notice of this Court. It is being stated that had petitioners been present when the appeal was heard and reserved for judgement, they could have brought all the facts before this Court because appellant-Insurance Company has suppressed the material facts about the existence of route permit on the date of accident. 4. In view of contentions of review petitioner, it would be appropriate to revisit the issue no.3, viz. whether on the day of occurrence, respondent no.1 (driver of offending vehicle) was not having valid and effective driving licence and route permit, if so, what would be its effect on claim petition. framed by Tribunal while passing the Award in question. Onus of proof was on respondent no.4, i.e., Insurance Company, 4.1. It is mentioned by Tribunal in award in question that Insurance Company did not examine any witness except Jahangir Hussain, Law Officer, in support of the report. It has also been said by Tribunal that with respect to validity of route permit for vehicle no.JK01N-9912, in the name of Feroz Ahmad Aga, the office of RTO, Srinagar, had reported the same to have been renewed from 20.06.2011 to 10.06.2012 and the date of accident involved was 2nd May 2013. According to Tribunal once Insurance Company did not produce and examine any witness in support of verification report. 4.2. Although Tribunal has tried to mention that Insurance Company has failed to produce and examine a witness in support of Verification of Route Permit, yet Tribunal has misdirected itself to see that Route Permit was valid only up to 10.06.2012 and Verification of Route Permit was a public document and presumed to be correct. If Tribunal had any suspicion about authenticity and genuineness of Verification Report of Route Permit, it could have summoned the officials of Regional Transport Authority, Srinagar, to clear the doubts, which it did not. 4.3. This Court while rendering judgement under review has at paragraph 09 discussed all these aspects of the matter lucidly. 4.4. It is now well settled that where a vehicle being used in a public space without a permit, it is a fundamental and statutory infraction and that insured would be liable to reimburse compensation amount paid to claimants by Insurance Company. Non-possession of a valid and effective permit entitles Insurance Company to seek right to recover the compensation paid to claimants from owner of offending vehicle. Reference in this regard is made to Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIR General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 7 SCC 558, and Gurmeet Singh v. New Delhi Assurance Co. Ltd. 2023 SCC Online Del 6269. 5. Another contention of review petitioners is that judgement under review has been passed without hearing them and at their back. They also contend that they were never heard by this Court. Such a contention is misconceived. 5.1. In this regard, it is appropriate to revisit main file and go through the minutes of the appeal-file. When appeal came up at the first time for consideration as there had been delay in filing appeal, as such, an application for condonation of delay, being COD no.12/2018 was listed on 2nd March 2018, in which notice was issued and execution proceedings before Tribunal were stayed subject to deposit of entire award amount. 5.2. It may be pertinent to mention here that perusal of main appeal-file also reveals that two Power of attorney/Vakalatnamas are on record. One Vakalatnama has been given by respondent no.1, authorizing Advocate Malik Mushtaq to appear on his behalf. Second Vakalatnama has been given by respondents 3&4, namely, Feroz Ahmad Aga and Muhammad Maqbool Bhat authorizing Advocate Mudasir Bin Hassan to appear and represent them. 5.3. On every week-end, it is a practice in vogue throughout, a Regular Cause List for a week is being issued by the High Court of J&K and Ladakh, giving details of the cases including counsels appearing in those cases. The Cause List is being circulated to all Advocates, Departments and even being browsed on official website of the High Court. 5.4. The counsel, who were appearing for respondents in the main appeal in the present case, cannot be heard saying that they did not have any knowledge about pendency and/or listing of the case. Thus, the contention of review petitioner that they were not heard and were never given hearing is specious and unfounded. 5.5. It may not be out of place to mention here that non-appearance of parties on any particular date(s) could not be made a reason for not deciding the case(s) as generally it has become a routine to protract matters. Adjournment culture has been deprecated by the Supreme Court. 5.6. The legal maxim ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ echoes loud and clear in our overburdened judicial system. Millions of cases are pending in the Courts throughout the India. The primary reason for huge pendency of cases is either shortage of judges, lack of infrastructure or procedural delays and adjournments. 5.7. An adjournment refers to the judicial practice of deferring a scheduled hearing to a later date. Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages rules for the Courts to follow when faced with adjournment requests. It provides that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party except where circumstances are beyond their control. Adjournment after adjournment has become a tool which leads to strategic delays. 5.8. The Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto P. Ltd and others, (2011) 9 SCC 678, has made it clear by saying, “Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward?”. The Supreme Court after that proceeded to say, “It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek - and the courts grant - adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realise that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.” Thereafter the Supreme Court has also said that no litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to suit, whether it is plaintiff or defendant, must cooperate with the Court in ensuring effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they do not, they do so at their own peril. 5.9. It has been said by the Supreme Court in Noor Mohammad v. Jetha Nand and another, (2013) 5 SCC 202, “In a democratic set up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the effect-potentiality to bring in a state of cataclysm where justice may become a casuality. A litigant expects a reasoned verdict from a temperate Judge but does not intend to and, rightly so, to guillotine much of time at the altar of reasons. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right. This right can be fully ripened by the requisite commitment of all concerned with the system. It cannot be regarded as a facet of Utopianism because such a thought is likely to make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose. Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice dispensation system cannot be allowed to remotely conceive of a casual approach.” The Supreme court further went to say that the corrosive effect that adjournments can have on a litigation and how a Lis can get entangled in the tentacles of an octopus. The philosophy of justice, the role of a lawyer and the court, the obligation of a litigant and all legislative commands, the nobility of the Bench and the Bar, the ability and efficiency of all concerned and ultimately the divinity of law are likely to make way for apathy and indifference when delay of the present nature takes place, for procrastination on the part of anyone destroys the values of life and creates a catastrophic turbulence in the sanctity of law. The virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralyzed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter. One cannot be oblivious to the feeling necessities of the time. No one can afford to sit in an ivory tower. Neither a Judge nor a lawyer can ignore “the total push and pressure of the cosmos”. It is devastating to expect infinite patience. Change of attitude is the warrant and command of the day. It has to be kept in mind that the time of leisure has to be given a decent burial. The sooner it takes place, the better it is. It is the obligation of the present generation to march with the time and remind oneself every moment that rule of law is the centripodal concern and delay in delineation and disposal of cases injects an artificial virus and becomes a vitiating element. The unfortunate characteristics of endemic delays have to be avoided at any cost. One has to bear in mind that this is the day, this is the hour and this is the moment, when all soldiers of law fight from the path. 5.10. In Gayathri v. M. Girish (2016) 14 SCC 142, the Supreme Court has highlighted that litigants pray for adjournment as if it was their right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and under any circumstance, displaying a blatant disregard for the Court proceedings inasmuch as practice of allowing frequent adjournments has become so common that it has significantly contributed to the backlog of cases. 5.11. It is made clear here that the Courts are not mute spectators and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward. In a democratic set up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the effect-potentiality to bring in a state of cataclysm where justice may become a casualty. A litigant expects a reasoned verdict from a temperate Judge but does not intend to and, rightly so, to guillotine much of time at the altar of reasons. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right. This right can be fully ripened by the requisite commitment of all concerned with the system. It cannot be regarded as a facet of Utopianism because such a thought is likely to make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose. Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice dispensation system cannot be allowed to remotely conceive of a casual approach. [Vide: Noor Mohammad v. Jetha Nand (supra)]. 5.12. Having regard to all that has been said above, the Tribunal while rendering impugned award has not taken note of all aspects of the matter and as a consequence of which, it is reiterated that appeal has been rightly allowed by this Court by virtue of the judgement under review. 6. Based on the contexts and discussions made, review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by review petitioners in Advocates’ Welfare Fund within one month from today. In the event they fail to do so, Registry shall take all steps for its recovery. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 01.08.2025 Ajaz Ahmad, Secretary Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No.