State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Piara Singh on 26 April, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012
In/and
First Appeal No.1742 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.
Date of Decision: 26.04.2012.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10,
Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory Ms
Gurprit, Manager Legal.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Piara Singh S/o Pritam Singh, Village Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri,
District Sangrur.
....Applicant/Respondent no.1
2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society
through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur, now at
Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.
...Respondent no.2.
Misc. Application for dismissal of the
appeal being filed beyond the period of
limitation and that too without being
accompanied by any application for
condonation of delay.
In Re:
First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 against the
order dated 22.06.2011 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Ms Neha Sharma, Advocate, counsel for applicant/respondent no.1.
Sh. Manvinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.2
-------------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the following 21 Misc. Applications for dismissal of the appeals, being beyond the period of limitation and that too Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 2 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, as well as appeals, as the question of facts and law involved in all the applications are the same and the appeals are filed against the same impugned order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum"):-
Sr. Misc. Appl. & Appeal Name of parties No. No.
1. 400 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1742 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.
2. 401 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1743 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Jeet Singh & Anr.
3. 402 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1744 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Karamjeet Singh & Anr.
4. 403 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1745 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Jagtar Singh & Anr.
5. 404 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1746 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Chamkaur Singh & Anr.
6. 405 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1747 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Pritam Singh & Anr.
7. 406 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1748 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.
8. 407 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1749 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Tek Singh & Anr.
9. 408 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1750 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
10. 409 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1751 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Gursewak Singh & Anr.
11. 410 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1752 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Mohan Singh & Anr.
12. 411 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1753 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Jagpal Singh & Anr.
13. 412 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1754 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Harjit Singh & Anr.
14. 413 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1755 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Mandeep Singh & Anr.
15. 414 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1756 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Makhan Singh & Anr.
16. 415 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1757 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Harvinder Singh & Anr. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 3 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
17. 416 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1758 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Gurpreet Singh & Anr.
18. 417 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1759 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Mukand Singh & Anr.
19. 418 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1760 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Gurwinder Singh & Anr.
20. 419 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1761 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Kulwant Singh & Anr.
21. 420 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1762 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Paramjit Kaur & Anr.
The facts are taken from Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and 1742 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this application.
2. Applicant/respondent- Sh. Piara Singh (In short "the applicant") has filed this application for dismissal of the appeal being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay.
3. It was submitted by the applicant that the appellant has filed the appeal against the order dated 22.06.2011 after the delay of 5-1/2 months and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. The appellant obtained the copy of the said order on 08.07.2011 and the appeal was to be filed upto 07.08.2011 i.e. within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. However, with an intention to mislead the Commission, the appellant filed an application before the District Forum on 15.11.2011 for directing the Ahlmad to reissue the certified copy of the order, by mentioning the correct number of the complaint. The appellant remained silent for more than 4-1/2 months after obtaining the certified copies on 08.07.2011 and at the time of filing the appeal, no application for condonation of delay has been filed and as per the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Civil Court Cases- 2009(2)-404, in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the decree. It was prayed that the application of the applicant/respondent no.1 Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 4 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 may be accepted and the appeal filed by the appellant, being without the application for condonation of delay, may be dismissed being time barred.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent/appellant, it was submitted that the matter was decided by the District Forum on 22.06.2011 in one case titled as 'Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard GIC', and the certified copy of the order was provided on 08.07.2011 in the above case. The title of the case contained only one name in the array/memorandum of parties as under:-
"Manjit Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, Village Bimbar, PO Majhi, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
....Complainant.
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory.
2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur, now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.
....Respondents.
Complaint No.768 Presented on : 03.11.2010.
Decided on : 22.06.2011".
5. Through the said order, 22 complaints were simultaneously disposed of, including the complaint against the order of which the present appeal has been filed. In all the other 21 complaints, the following orders were passed on 22.06.2011 separately:-
"22.06.2011 Present: None.
Vide separate detailed order passed in main complaint titled as Manjit Singh Vs. ICICI Lombard and another, complaint no.768 dated 03.11.2011 (copy placed in this case), this complaint has been partly allowed. File be consigned to records ion due course.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President".
6. The identical order was passed in following other complaints:- Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 5
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 Sr. No. Complaint No. & Date Name of parties 2 765 dated 03.11.2010 Piara Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 3 766 dated 03.11.2010 Jeet Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 4 767 dated 03.11.2010 Karamjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 5 778 dated 09.11.2010 Jagtar Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 6 779 dated 09.11.2010 Chamkaur Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 7 780 dated 09.11.2010 Pritam Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 8 781 dated 09.11.2010 Balwinder Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 9 782 dated 09.11.2010 Tek Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 10 801 dated 23.11.2010 Paramjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 11 802 dated 23.11.2010 Gursewak Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 12 803 dated 23.11.2010 Mohan Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 13 804 dated 23.11.2010 Jaspal Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 14 827 dated 06.12.2010 Harjeet Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 15 828 dated 06.12.2010 Mandeep Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 16 843 dated 09.12.2010 Makhan Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 17 844 dated 09.12.2010 Harwinder Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 18 845 dated 09.12.2010 Gurpreet Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 19 862 dated 20.12.2010 Mukand Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 20 863 dated 20.12.2010 Gurvinder Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 21 868 dated 20.12.2010 Kulwant Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 22 869 dated 20.12.2010 Paramjit Kaur Vs ICICI Lombard
7. In the order passed in case 'Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard GIC', present complaint was also disposed of and the copy of said order was placed in the complaint file against the order of which, the present appeal has been filed. In the memo of parties, the title of complaint "Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard GIC" was mentioned and no title of other cases was Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 6 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 mentioned. Only short orders carried the name of parties in each case and, as such, the appeal could only be filed against the order reproduced above, as the said complaint was disposed of by the said short order and the order passed in case 'Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard GIC' was required to be read as part of the short order against which the appeal was required to be filed.
8. The certified copy was provided in the case of 'Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard GIC' and no certified copy was provided in the other individual complaints. Earlier, the copies of the short orders were not provided and the same were provided only on 18.11.2011 on the application moved by the appellant and thereafter, the appeal was immediately filed within limitation on 01.12.2011.
10. When the appeals were presented before the Commission, the same was refused to be entertained by the registry, as there was no certified copy of the order(s) passed, in other 21 cases. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before the District Forum to provide the same and the District Forum passed the following order:-
"Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 14.11.2011:
Present: Sh. Ritesh Jindal, Advocate, proxy for counsel for applicant/respondent no.1.
Heard on the application. Separate orders have been passed in all the connected cases where it has been mentioned that vide separate detailed order passed in the main complaint no.768 dated 03.11.2010, the complaint has been partly allowed. We feel that the applicant/respondent no.1 may obtain the copies of those orders and produce the same before the Hon'ble State Commission, if so advised. It does not seem necessary to direct the Ahlmad to reissue the certified copy of the order by mentioning correct complaint number. Ordered accordingly. File be consigned to records in due course.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President".
Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 7
In/and
First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
11. Thereafter, the free certified copies of main order were provided on 18.11.2011 in pursuance of above order dated 14.11.2011. As such, the present appeal has been filed within the limitation period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of said order i.e. 18.11.2011. The reasons explained above were beyond the control of the appellant and were on account of the error of the registry in not providing the correct copies of the orders and there is no delay in filing the appeal. It was prayed that in case, the Commission comes to the conclusion that there is bonafide delay in filing the appeal, time may be granted to the appellant to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay, if need be.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the application and have heard the counsel for the parties.
13. The impugned order was passed by the District Forum on 22.06.2011 and the certified copies of the orders in all the complaint cases were received by the counsel for the parties on 08.07.2011, as per the report of the District Forum sent vide no.176 dated 22.03.2012, in connected First Appeal No.1741 of 2011. The learned District Forum in Para-2 of its report, mentioned as follows:-
"As per entries at serial number 329 to 350 in the judgment issue register, copies of the judgments in the above noted complaint cases were prepared on 5.7.2011 and received by the learned counsel for the parties including the respondents on 8.7.2011".
14. The appeal was required to be filed upto 07.08.2011 i.e. within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order, whereas the present appeal was filed on 01.12.2011 i.e. after the delay of about four months. No application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed along with the appeal. The appellant has opposed the application for dismissal of the appeal only on the ground that the copies of short orders passed in the complaint cases were not supplied and later on, the fresh application was moved on 14.11.2011 for providing the copies of the short orders passed in the Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 8 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 connected cases. Although as per the report of the District Forum, copies in all the complaint cases were supplied to the counsel for the parties on 08.07.2011. Yet presuming the contention of the appellant to be correct, although it is not as per the factual position of the record, then also from 08.07.2011 till 14.11.2011, no appeal or application for obtaining the copies of the short orders was filed and this delay of 130 days remained unexplained. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. "Swaran Singh Vs Lath Singh & Anr.", Air 1989 (P & H)-306; "T. Satyanarayana Vs Labour Courts, Guntur & Anr.", 1988 ILLJ-133 (AP);
"Haryana Power General Copn Ltd. Vs Sudesh Mitter & Ors.", RSA No.4106 of 2004 decided on March 15, 2012 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in this case all the copies including the short orders were supplied, but for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant after the delay of 130 days again sought the re-issuance of the certified copies of short orders in other complaints. This explanation furnished by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has also not bothered to file application for condonation of delay along with the appeal.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
16. In another case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 9 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as under:-
"Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly".
17. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sudhakar Suresh Kadam & Anr.", I (2011) CPJ-152(NC), in Para-1(relevant portion) observed as follows:-
"Be that as it may, the reasonings assigned for condonation of delay are the procedural delays that usually occur with governmental organizations for no one seriously pursuing the matter. The reasonings assigned can hardly be said to be reasonable, satisfactory or even proper excuse for delay. Law of limitation has to be applied with all its vigour provided by the Statute and no Court/adjudicating authority can extend the period of limitation, on equitable grounds. That apart, the expression "sufficient cause"
cannot be construed liberally. The revision petition in this backdrop, for inordinate belated filing of revision petition, merits dismissal on this score alone".
18. In another case reported as "Union of India Vs Vijay Laxmi", 2006(1)CLT-305(NC), Hon'ble National Commission held that datewise Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 10 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 moments of the file from one table to another table and the time spent has to be shown.
19. In recent judgment the Hon'ble National Commission in case "HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs Amardeep Tharuman Chhabriya & Ors." Revision Petition No.2621 of 2011 decided on 14th October, 2011, relying upon the authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court, refused to condone the delay. In that case, the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Limited Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation", (2010) 5 SCC-459 was relied upon and the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were reproduced:-
"We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time".
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment reported as "Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", 2012(1) CLT-418(SC), in Para-3(relevant portion), observed as follows:-
"She instructed her counsel to prepare a draft of the case to be filed in this Court, but did not take steps necessary for filing the petition. She visited India in April, 2011, but then too she did not bother to contact the counsel. The petitioner's assertion that she could not do so because she was suffering from viral fever has not been substantiated by any document. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less justification for exercise of power of this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act".
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in Para-4 as follows:- Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 11
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 "4. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding any application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras".
21. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be properly explained and in case the delay is properly explained and sufficient cause is shown for such delay, the same can be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above in detail, no explanation is coming forward for not filing the appeal from 08.07.2011 to 30.11.2011 and for 115 days (three months and 25 days), applicant remained silent. Once the limitation starts running, it does not come to an end on filing subsequent applications. The application was moved on 14.11.2011 before the District Forum for providing the copies of the short orders and there is no explanation as to why this was not done after 08.07.2011 when the copies were supplied. Period of 30 days initially given was uptill 07.08.2011 and thereafter the delay from 07.08.2011 till 30.11.2011 is not, at all, explained, rather it reflects the casual and non-bothering attitude of the applicant, thinking that the delay will be condoned as a matter of right, but it is not so when it is tested on the judicial anvil and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission cannot be ignored. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 115 days.
22. Accordingly, the application (Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011) filed by the applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 12 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
23. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.8753/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
24. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant and respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.401 of 2012 in F.A. No.1743 of 2011:-
25. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.401 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1743 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jeet Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1743 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jeet Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
26. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.10,206/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 13
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
27. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.402 of 2012 in F.A. No.1744 of 2011:-
28. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.402 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1744 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Karamjeet Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1744 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Karamjeet Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
29. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.17,473/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
30. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.403 of 2012 in F.A. No.1745 of 2011:-
31. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.403 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1745 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jagtar Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 14 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1745 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jagtar Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
32. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.14,566/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
33. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.404 of 2012 in F.A. No.1746 of 2011:-
34. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.404 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1746 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chamkaur Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1746 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chamkaur Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
35. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.10,206/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 15
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
36. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.405 of 2012 in F.A. No.1747 of 2011:-
37. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.405 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1747 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pritam Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1747 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pritam Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
38. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.20,379/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
39. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.406 of 2012 in F.A. No.1748 of 2011:-
40. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.406 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1748 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 16 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1748 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
41. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.17,472/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
42. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.407 of 2012 in F.A. No.1749 of 2011:-
43. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.407 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1749 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tek Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1749 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tek Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
44. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 17
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
45. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.408 of 2012 in F.A. No.1750 of 2011:-
46. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.408 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1750 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1750 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
47. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
48. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.409 of 2012 in F.A. No.1751 of 2011:-
49. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.409 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1751 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gursewak Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 18 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1751 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gursewak Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
50. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
51. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.410 of 2012 in F.A. No.1752 of 2011:-
52. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.410 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1752 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohan Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1752 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohan Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
53. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 19
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
54. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.411 of 2012 in F.A. No.1753 of 2011:-
55. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.411 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1753 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jagpal Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1753 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jagpal Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
56. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
57. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.412 of 2012 in F.A. No.1754 of 2011:-
58. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.412 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1754 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harjit Singh Bhullar & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 20 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1754 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harjit Singh Bhullar & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
59. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
60. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.413 of 2012 in F.A. No.1755 of 2011:-
61. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.413 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1755 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mandeep Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1754 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mandeep Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
62. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.17,472/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 21
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
63. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.414 of 2012 in F.A. No.1756 of 2011:-
64. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.414 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1756 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Makhan Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1756 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Makhan Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
65. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
66. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.415 of 2012 in F.A. No.1757 of 2011:-
67. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.415 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1757 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harvinder Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 22 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1757 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harvinder Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
68. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
69. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.416 of 2012 in F.A. No.1758 of 2011:-
70. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.416 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1758 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurpreet Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1758 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurpreet Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
71. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.17,472/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 23
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
72. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.417 of 2012 in F.A. No.1759 of 2011:-
73. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.417 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1759 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukand Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1759 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukand Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
74. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
75. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.418 of 2012 in F.A. No.1760 of 2011:-
76. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.418 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1760 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurvinder Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 24 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1760 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurvinder Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
77. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
78. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.419 of 2012 in F.A. No.1761 of 2011:-
79. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.419 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1761 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kulwant Singh & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1761 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kulwant Singh & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
80. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 25
In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
81. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Misc. Appl. No.420 of 2012 in F.A. No.1762 of 2011:-
82. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1742 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piara Singh & Anr.), the Misc. Appl. No.419 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1762 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paramjit Kaur & Anr.) filed by applicant/respondent no.1 for dismissal of the appeal, being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, is accepted and consequently, the First Appeal No.1762 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paramjit Kaur & Anr.), is dismissed being time barred. No order as to costs.
Main Case
83. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
84. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the appellant & respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
85. The arguments in all the applications were heard on 19.04.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
86. Copy of this order be placed in the following cases:-
Sr. Misc. Appl. & Appeal Name of parties No. No. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 26 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
2. 401 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1743 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Jeet Singh & Anr.
3. 402 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1744 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Karamjeet Singh & Anr.
4. 403 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1745 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Jagtar Singh & Anr.
5. 404 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1746 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Chamkaur Singh & Anr.
6. 405 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1747 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Pritam Singh & Anr.
7. 406 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1748 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.
8. 407 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1749 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Tek Singh & Anr.
9. 408 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1750 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
10. 409 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1751 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Gursewak Singh & Anr.
11. 410 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1752 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Mohan Singh & Anr.
12. 411 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1753 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Jagpal Singh & Anr.
13. 412 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1754 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Harjit Singh & Anr.
14. 413 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1755 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Mandeep Singh & Anr.
15. 414 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1756 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Makhan Singh & Anr.
16. 415 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1757 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Harvinder Singh & Anr.
17. 416 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1758 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Gurpreet Singh & Anr.
18. 417 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1759 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Mukand Singh & Anr.
19. 418 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1760 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Gurwinder Singh & Anr.
20. 419 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1761 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Kulwant Singh & Anr. Misc. Appl. No.400 of 2012 27 In/and First Appeal No.1742 of 2011
21. 420 of 2012 in/and F.A. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
No.1762 of 2011 Ltd. Vs Paramjit Kaur & Anr.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
(Piare Lal Garg)
Member
April 26, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)