IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC. APP. No.220/2008

Reserved on : 22nd January, 2009
Date of decision: 31st March, 2009
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through : Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
SATPAL & ORS.

Through : None.

..... Respondents

CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may

Yes
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3.

Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

Yes

J.R. Midha, J.
1.

The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal on the ground that the offending vehicle bearing

No.HR-38 0739 was never insured with the appellant.
2.

This case is a classic example of Insurance Company

raising frivolous pleas before the learned Tribunal as well as

before this Court resulting in wastage of judicial time, delay of
trial, harassment to the insured and delay in payment of
compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased
victim of road accident.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

1 of 19

2.1

Respondent No.4 is the owner of truck bearing No.HR-38-

0739 who insured the same with the appellant but by mistake,
the insurance agent initially mentioned wrong vehicle number
on the Cover Note as HR-38-6739 instead of HR-38-0738
which, was on being pointed out, was corrected by the
insurance agent on the copy of the insured but the insurance
agent did not carry out the correction in the copy with the
Insurance Company.

However, there was no doubt with

regard to the vehicle number because the insurance agent

inspected the vehicle and had taken the copy of the
registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate at the
time of issuance of the cover note which contained the vehicle
number. The insured also filled up the proposal form at the
time of taking the Cover Note. The aforesaid insurance policy
was also issued by the appellant in respect of the same
vehicle for the subsequent two years i.e., 1996-97 and 199798, which contained the correct vehicle number.
2.2

The Insurance Company took a false plea before the

learned Tribunal that they had not insured the vehicle number
involved in the accident as a result of which the ex-parte
award was passed against the owner who applied for setting
aside the ex-parte award which was set aside subject to
deposit of Rs.50,000/-. The owner unsuccessfully challenged
the said order before this Court and thereafter, deposited
Rs.50,000/- with the learned Tribunal whereupon the ex-parte

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

2 of 19

award was set aside. The Insurance Company again took up

the same plea before the Tribunal that they had not insured
the offending vehicle.
2.3

The owner of the vehicle led sufficient evidence to prove

that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. The
owner also proved two renewals of the policy which contained
correct vehicle number.
2.4

The owner also summoned the witness from the Road

Transport Authority to prove that the wrong vehicle number

mentioned in insurance records was not owned by him. The
name of the owner of that vehicle was also placed on record
to prove that the insured had no connection with wrong
vehicle number mentioned in the insurance records and,
therefore, no insurance policy could have been taken by him
or even issued by the Insurance Company in respect of the
said vehicle.

The appellant did not cross-examine the

witnesses of the owner on material particulars. No evidence

was led by the appellant to rebut the evidence of the owner.
2.5

The learned Tribunal passed an award against the

appellant and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant for

taking the dishonest plea to avoid its liability by taking
advantage of the mistake of the agent in noting a wrong
vehicle number on the cover note.
2.6

Despite very clear finding, the appellant has challenged

the award before this Court again raising the same false plea.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

3 of 19

2.7

The frivolous defence of the appellant before the learned

Tribunal has resulted in irreparable loss and injury to the

claimants who lost their young son on 29th May, 1996 and the
final award was passed by the Tribunal on 11th January, 2008
and the claimants received the payment after about 12 years.
2.8

The owner of the vehicle also suffered inconvenience for

contesting a frivolous litigation with the appellant and suffered

an ex-parte award which was ultimately set aside upon
deposit of Rs.50,000/- by the owner which he was compelled
to challenge before this Court.
2.9

The judicial time wasted before the learned Tribunal and

before this Court cannot be computed in terms of money. It is

noted that about 30 hearings took place before the learned
Tribunal and 9 hearings took place before this Court.
2.9.1 It is necessary to record that the relevant facts which are
given in the succeeding paras.
3.

On, 29th May, 1996, a young boy named Vijay Kumar,

aged 16 years was going on his bicycle towards Gopi Nath

Bazaar in Delhi Cant when he was crushed by truck No.HR-38
0739 near MES GE Office.
4.

Respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the

deceased-Vijay Kumar and they filed the petition before the

learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from
respondent No.3 (driver), respondent No.4 (owner) and the
appellant (insurer) of the offending truck.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

4 of 19

5.

The appellant appeared before the learned Tribunal and

filed an application dated 3rd November, 1988 under Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deletion of their name
from the array of the respondents on the ground that cover
note No.431483 in the name of Amit Khurana for the period
12th September, 1995 to 11th September, 1996 was issued for
vehicle No. HR-38 6739 but the vehicle number has been
fraudulently changed to HR-38 0739.

It was submitted that

there was manipulation in the insurance policy by changing

the vehicle No. from HR-38 6739 to HR-38 0739.
6.

On 7th October, 1999, the learned Tribunal discharged

the appellant from the proceedings by accepting their plea

that forgery has been committed in the cover note by
changing the vehicle number from HR-38 6739 to HR-38 0739.
7.

On 17th February, 2001, the learned Tribunal passed an

ex-parte award in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 (parents

of the deceased) and against respondent No.3 (driver) and
respondent No.4 (owner).
8.

On 18th December, 2002, respondent No.4 (owner) filed

an application for setting aside of the ex-parte award dated

17th February, 2001 on the ground that the offending truck
bearing No. HR-38 0739 was duly insured with the appellant at
the time of the accident and respondent No.4 had intimated
the appellant of the summons received from the Learned
Tribunal and had also requested the appellant to defend the

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

5 of 19

case. Respondent No.4 had also handed over a vakalatnama

to the appellant who was obliged to defend the case on behalf
of the insured under the policy. This application was allowed
by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 20th November, 2004
subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- with further direction to
release the said amount to respondents No.1 and 2 subject to
adjustment in the final award.
9.

Respondent

No.4

unsuccessfully

challenged

the

aforesaid order dated 20th November, 2004 before this Court

and thereafter, complied with the order by depositing
Rs.50,000/- with the learned Tribunal on 3 rd January, 2005
which was released to respondents No.1 and 2 on 4 th January,
2005.
10.

On 20th December, 2004, respondent No.4 filed an

application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act read

with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
impleading the appellant as a respondent on the ground that
the appellant has played fraud and mischief upon the learned
Tribunal by taking a false plea before the learned Tribunal,
pursuant to which the appellant was discharged and deleted
from the array of the parties on 7th October, 1999.

This

application was allowed vide order dated 18th March, 2006 and
the appellant was impleaded as respondent No.3 before the
learned Tribunal.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

6 of 19

11.

The appellant filed the written statement before the

learned Tribunal in which once again the same plea was taken
that the appellant had insured vehicle No. HR-38 6739 vide
cover note No.431483 for the period 12th September, 1995 to
11th September, 1996 and respondent No.4 (owner) had
forged and tempered with the cover note by changing the
vehicle No. HR-38 6739 into HR-38 0739.
12.

The learned Tribunal framed a specific issue, namely,

issue No.2 which is reproduced hereunder:2. Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
13.

At the trial, respondent No.4 appeared as R2W1 and

deposed that he was the registered owner of vehicle No. HR38 0739 in 1995-96 and he insured the same with Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. through its agent, Tirlochan Singh vide
cover note No.431483 dated 12th February, 1995 for the
period 12th September, 1995 to 11th September, 1996.

He

further stated that he gave copy of certificate of registration

of the vehicle, copy of permit and copy of fitness certificate to
the agent at the time of the insurance. However, the agent
wrongly wrote vehicle No. HR-38 6739 on the cover note
instead of HR-38 0739 whereupon respondent No.4 pointed
out to the agent who corrected the number on the copy of the
cover note provided to respondent No.4. Copy of cover note
was marked as R3W1/R1.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

7 of 19

13.1 R2W1 (respondent No.4) further deposed that he notified

the appellant about the accident on 29th May, 1996.

R2W1

stated that he received a letter dated 17th April, 1997Ex.R3W1/R6 from the appellant in which it was stated by the
appellant that they have received the summons from the
learned Tribunal and, therefore, respondent No.4 should send
the registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, driving
licence, FIR, site plan, policy, etc. to the appellant.
13.2 R2W1 replied to the above letter on 13th May, 1997Ex.R2W1/1 in which he stated that he had already informed
the appellant about the accident and he further stated that he
has also received the summons from the learned Tribunal
which were being forwarded to the appellant.

The witness

attached the copies of the registration certificate, permit,

fitness certificate, driving licence, FIR and cover note as
demanded by the appellant. R2W1 further deposed that he
addressed the letter dated 13th June, 2006 Ex.R2W1/R8 to
the appellant stating that the case was listed before the
learned Tribunal on 12th July, 2006. Respondent No.4 attached
the copy of the cover note No.431483, insurance policies for
the

period

1996-97

and

1997-98-Ex.R3W1/R9

and

Ex.R3W1/R10, copy of the registration certificate, copy of the

letter dated 13th May, 1997 as well as the certificate issued by
Excise and Taxation Department, Faridabad with respect to

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

8 of 19

vehicle No. HR-38 6739, owned by Smt. Naina Maghu

Ex.RW2W2/A.
13.3 R2W1 further deposed that he was never the registered
owner of vehicle No. HR-38 6739 and he had no connection
with the said vehicle.

He further deposed that as per the

investigation done, Smt. Naina Maghu wife of Shri Satish

Maghu resident of Faridabad was the owner of vehicle No. HR38 6739. The documents obtained from the office of Assistant
Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad were exhibited as
Ex.RW2W2/A, Ex.RW2W2/B and RW2W2/C.
13.4 The appellant did not cross-examine R2W1 (respondent
No.4) with respect to any of the aforesaid statements made as
well as the documents exhibited by the witness.
14.

Respondent No.4 (owner) produced another witness,

namely, Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Taxation Inspector from the office

of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana as R2W2
who deposed that vehicle No. HR-38 0739 was registered in
the name of respondent No.4 and vehicle No. HR-38 6739 was
registered in the name of Smt. Naina Maghu.

The witness

exhibited the extracts from the demand and disposal register

of vehicle No. HR-38 0739 as Ex.R2W2/B and in respect of
vehicle No. HR-38 6739 as Ex.R2W2/C.
15.

The appellant produced only one witness, namely, Mr.

P.R. Bansal who appeared as R3W1 and deposed that the

appellant had served notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

9 of 19

respondent No.4. He further deposed that he had brought the

premium register as per which respondent No.4 got vehicle
No. HR-38 6739 insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for
the period 12th September, 1995 to 11th September, 1996.
15.1 R3W1 did not make any statement to rebut what had
been proved by R2W1 (respondent No.4).
15.2 The cross-examination of R3W1 is very interesting. He
admitted that the cover note is issued by the Development
Officer and it is mandatory for him to see the vehicle as well
as to check the registration certificate, permit and fitness
certificate of the vehicle and to retain the copies of the said
documents. The witness was not aware whether it was
checked from the Development Officer who had wrongly
mentioned the vehicle number.

The witness also showed

ignorance that vehicle No. HR-38 6739 was registered in the

name of Smt. Naina Maghu. The witness admitted the receipt
of Ex.R3W1/R7 and Ex.R3W1/R8. The witness also admitted
that

the

policies

for

the

subsequent

years,

namely,

Ex.R3W1/R9 for 1996-97 and Ex.R3W1/R10 for 1997-98 were

issued by the appellant.
16.

The learned Tribunal decided issue No.2 in favour of

respondent No.4 holding that the offending vehicle bearing

No. HR-38 0739 was duly insured with the appellant.

The

findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No.2 are reproduced

hereunder:-

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

10 of 19

17.

9. ISSUE NO.2
This issue is as regard the fact
whether offending vehicle was insured with R-3
insurance company. The case of the insurance
company that Mr. Amit Khurana had taken a
insurance policy earlier in respect of truck no.HR
38 6739 from it and had manipulated the
number of the vehicle as HR 38 0739. R-2 while
deposing as R2W2 had testified that policy was
taken by him in respect of vehicle no. HR 38
0739 from R-3 through agent Trilochan Singh,
who by mistake had written the vehicle no. as HR
38 6739 and on being pointed out the mistake,
had corrected the vehicle number as HR 38 0739
in the copy supplied to the witness. Further
vehicle no. HR 38 6739 had been found to be
registered in the name of Smt. Naina Maghu, as
per testimony of R2W2 Vivek Aggarwal, a
witness from office of Deputy Excise and Taxation
Commissioner, Sector 12, Faridabad, Haryana, R2 had also deposed while deposing as R2W2 that
he had no concern with vehicle no. HR 38 6739.
R3W1 while deposing on behalf of R-3 insurance
company in cross examination admitted the fact
that as per the rules of insurance, it was
mandatory in case of commercial vehicles to
check the registration certificate, permit and the
fitness certificate of the vehicle to be insured and
further admitted that it was mandatory for the
development officer to retain the copies of
aforesaid documents but such copies furnished
by the insurer while taking the insurance policy
had not been produced and the plea being taken
on behalf of insurance company is dishonest to
avoid its liability taking advantage of the fact
that a mistake was committed by its agent while
recording the vehicle no. and which was
corrected in the copy given to the insurer. Said
agent by whom the insurance cover was
prepared and premium receipt given, has not
been produced by the insurance company nor
the documents supporting the contention either
in respect of vehicle no. HR 38 0739 or in respect
of vehicle no. HR 38 6739. Accordingly, I hold
that offending vehicle being HR 38 0739 was
duly insured with R-3 Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd.
The learned Tribunal imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- on

the appellant for taking a false plea that the offending vehicle
MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

11 of 19

was not insured with it and continuing with the same stand
despite the evidence to the contrary on record and having
correct knowledge of all the facts forcing respondent No.4
(owner) to contest the proceedings and to deposit a sum of
Rs.50,000/-.
also

It was also recorded that respondent No.4 had

approached

this

court

and

was

forced

to

incur

unnecessary expenses. The findings of the learned Tribunal in

para 13 of the award are reproduced hereunder:-

18.

13. The R-3 insurance company has taken

a preliminary objection stating that vehicle in
question was not insured with it and continued
with the stand right upto the stage of final
arguments despite evidence to the contrary on
the record and having the correct knowledge of
the facts forcing R-2 to contest the proceedings
and to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and it was
submitted on behalf of R-2 that R-2 had also to
approach Honble High Court in the matter and
was forced to incur unnecessary expenses. A
sum of Rs.25,000/- as exemplary cost is imposed
on R-3 insurance company which shall be paid
and deposited in the court by R-3 insurance
company along with the award amount. Further
an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was paid by R-2
and received by petitioner no.2 Smt. Vidya shall
be deducted from the award amount by R-3
insurance company and instead, the amount
shall be paid along with interest @ 9 per cent per
annum to R-2.
The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that

the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-38 0739 was not insured
with it and therefore, they are not liable to pay the award
amount to the claimants.
19.

There is no merit or substance in this appeal.

The

appeal is misconceived and without any substance. There is

clear evidence on record that vehicle No. HR-38 0739 was
MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

12 of 19

validly insured with the appellant on the date of accident i.e.

29th May, 1996. The appellant raised a false plea before the
learned Tribunal as well as this Court. The appellant is also
guilty of making false statements on oath before the learned
Tribunal. The appellant again made false statement on oath
before this Court in the statement recorded on 22 nd January,
2009. The reasons for above finding are as under:i)

It is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 is the owner

of offending vehicle bearing No. HR-38 0739. The registration

certificate, permit as well as fitness of the said vehicle are in
the name of respondent No.4.
ii).

On 12th September, 1995, the respondent No.4 insured

the truck bearing No. HR-38 0739 with the appellant through
the agent Tirlochan Singh who issued cover note No.431483
but recorded a wrong number, namely, HR-38 6739 which was
later on corrected by him on the copy given to respondent
No.4.

However, the correction was not carried out in the

record of the appellant.

iii)

The appellant did not produce the agent, Tirlochan Singh

to rebut this plea.

iv)

The appellant did not produce the copies of the

registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, etc. taken at

the time of the issuance of the cover note.
v)

The appellant also did not produce the proposal form

directed by this Court vide order dated 5th May, 2008.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

13 of 19

20.

The plea of the appellant that respondent No.4 insured

truck No. HR-38 6739 is false and not even plausible because:(i)

Respondent No.4 is not the owner of truck No. HR-38

6739 and has no connection with the said vehicle.

(ii)

Truck No. HR-38 6739 is owned by Smt. Naina Maghu

which is proved by the testimony of R2W2 and, Ex.RW2W2/B

and Ex.RW2W2/C.
(iii)

The appellant

has admittedly insured the offending

truck No. HR-38 0739 for the subsequent periods 1996-97

(Ex.R3W1/R9) and 1997-98 (Ex.R3W1/R10).
21.

It is well settled that only an owner of a vehicle can take

an insurance policy. A person who is not the owner cant take

the insurance policy because he has no insurable interest in
the vehicle.

Admittedly, the policy has been taken by the

respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 is the owner of only

vehicle No.HR-38 0739. Respondent No.4 is not the owner of
vehicle No.HR-38 6739 and, therefore, respondent No.4 had
no insurable interest in vehicle No. HR-38 6739 which is
owned by Ms. Naina Maghu. Respondent No.4 could not have
taken and the appellant could not have issued an insurance
cover in respect of the vehicle No. HR-38 6739.
22.

The cover note bearing No.431483 was issued by the

appellant to insure vehicle No. HR-38 0739 but the agent

initially mentioned a wrong number by mistake, namely, HR38 6739 which was corrected on the copy given to respondent

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

14 of 19

No.4 but the corresponding correction was not carried out in

the records of the appellant. Although, the appellant was fully
aware of the correct position but they raised a false plea
knowing it to be false with the dishonest intention of avoiding
the liability.

The appellant made false statement in the

written statement before the learned Tribunal as well as on

oath in the witness box.

False statements have also been

made in the present appeal as well as in the statement

recorded on oath on 22nd January, 2009.
23.

The appellant has miserable failed in its duty under the

law. In the case of Ramakrishna Reddy vs. Manager, HMT

Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, the Division Bench of Karnataka High
Court held as under:19. We may also at this stage refer to the
pernicious habit of some branches of insurance
companies
in
filing
stereotyped
written
statements denying all and everything. They
routinely deny the insurance, then alternatively
plead that even if there was an insurance, there
was a breach of terms of the policy, that driver
did not have a valid driving licence, and lastly
there was no negligence on the part of driver of
the insured vehicle. They do not bother to verify
whether the insurance policy covered the risk or
not and whether driver had a licence or not. We
recognize
that
insurers
are
sometimes
handicapped for want of full information, while
giving instructions to their counsel and,
therefore, the objections may be general in
nature. We are also conscious that we cannot
frown upon a party taking all permissible
defences. But, applications for motor accident
claims are not to be treated by insurers as
normal private adversary litigation, where
technical contentions can abound in pleadings
and the sole intention is winning the
l
MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

15 of 19

i
s. Under the policies of insurance, the insurers
discharge statutory obligations towards third
parties. They should do so keeping in view the
object and spirit of the Act, and the position of
hapless victims of motor accidents. Insurers
should balance their concern to safeguard its
financial interest, with their obligations as
instruments of social justice, under the
Mo
t
o
A
c
t.
19.1 The claimants are not litigants by
choice, but are constrained to approach the
Tribunal, because of death of the bread-winner or
injury to self, and because the owner and insurer
of the vehicle involved, fail to pay the
compensation. The insurer should bear in mind
that the claimants are also handicapped in
obtaining particulars of the insurance policy held
by owner or driving licence held by the driver of
the vehicle, and they solely depend upon the
police for these particulars. The insurer should,
therefore, verify whether there was any
insurance policy or not, whether the insured was
covered by insurance policy in regard to the
claim or not, and whether the driver had a
licence or not before filing its statement of
objections and narrow down the area of
controversy. If the insurers were to file play it
safe written statements, without verifying these
aspects and mechanically denying all petition
averments, the trial gets delayed and the
claimants are put to misery and unjustly kept
away from the direly needed compensation. It is
time that insurers get rid of deny everything and
await the award syndrome and become
responsible and responsive opponents in motor
accident claims. We make it clear that the above
observations are intended only for those officers
of insurance companies who refuse to recognize
their statutory obligations to third parties, under
the insurance policies issued to the insured.

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

16 of 19

24.

In another case of Ramadevsing vs. Chudasma, 1999

ACJ 1129, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held as

under:-

25.

26. So far as the funds to defend their

cases are concerned, insurance company would
never feel paucity of funds. They raise defences
all and sundry and at times their goal is to see
that the claim of the claimant, if not defeated is
at least delayed. With this purpose and motive
they
contest
the
claims
under
the
Mo
t
o
r
We have not come across any case where on
receipt of the notice by the claimant(s) for the
claim or in service of the summons from the
Claims Tribunal the insurance company, more
particularly, in cases where insurance of the
vehicle is not disputed, offering or making
payment at least of the amount which according
to it the claimants would be entitled to. We have
yet to come across such gesture. The only
purpose with which the insurance company
depends the claim petition is to see as to how
the case of the claimant is defeated and on its
failure to do so, how the claim of the claimant
would be reduced to a minimum and/or
delayed.
This is not a simple case of making false statements. It

has caused severe and irreparable damage to the claimants

and the owner which needs to be recorded.

The insured,

namely, respondent No.4 reported the accident to the

appellant on 17th April, 1997 and, therefore, the appellant was
obliged to defend the case before the learned Tribunal.
However, the appellant filed a frivolous application before the
learned Tribunal and got itself discharged without informing
respondent No.4 which resulted in an ex-parte award dated

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

17 of 19

17th February, 2001. Respondent No.4 had no option but to

file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was
allowed subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/-.

Respondent No.4

unsuccessfully challenged that order before this court and,

thereafter, deposited Rs.50,000/-. Respondent No.4 had to
contest the whole case and finally the award was passed
against the appellant on 11th January, 2008.
26.

The frivolous plea set up by the appellant also caused

great prejudice to respondents No.1 and 2 who lost their only

son and the compensation was delayed unnecessarily due to
the frivolous plea raised by the appellant. The appellant did
not initially satisfy the award and filed the present appeal and
also applied for stay and upon being unsuccessful, the
appellant finally deposited the award amount before the
learned Tribunal on 30th April, 2008 which was released to
respondents No.1 and 2 on 24th July, 2008. Respondents No.1
and 2 (claimants) received the award amount after waiting for
12 years only because of the frivolous plea set up by the
appellant.
27.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

28.

This appeal is gross abuse and misuse of the process of

law. This is a fit case for launching a prosecution under

Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However,

considering that the lower courts are already over-burdened

with work, I refrain from invoking Section 340 of the Code of

MAC APP No.220/2008

Page

18 of 19

Criminal Procedure but I impose a cost of Rs.60,000/- on the

appellant for raising a false plea before the learned Tribunal
and making false statements on oath before the learned
Tribunal as well as before this Court and wasting the judicial
time.
29.

The

appellant

is

directed

to

deposit the

cost

of

Rs.60,000/- with the Registrar General of this court within one

week. After depositing the cost with this Court, the appellant
shall deduct the cost from the salary of the officers
responsible for this case.
30.

The copy of this order be also sent Dasti to the Chairman

of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. who shall determine the

responsibility of the concerned officers for deduction of the
cost within four weeks. Compliance report be filed before this
Court within three months.
31.

List for compliance on 1st May, 2009.

March 31, 2009

aj

MAC APP No.220/2008

J.R. MIDHA, J

Page

19 of 19