# India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nagendra - **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1174 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-10-12 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/india-insurance-co-ltd-v-nagendra-42056 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482summoning order-offence U/S 420/406 IPC-from bare perusal of complaint-clear case of breach of contract-pure civil nature dispute-all transaction made at Mumbai-no part of transaction at Allahabad-Magistrate passed Summoning order on mechanical manner-Court expressed its great displeasure-regarding conduct of Judicial Officer-Summoning order quashed. Held: Para 12 I have gone through all the three case laws mentioned above. In the instant case prima facie there is nothing which may indicate that the applicant has any dishonest intention when he entered into the contract with opposite party no. 2. Therefore, summoning of the applicant under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be allowed to sustain. From the perusal of the complaint itself it is evident that it is a simple case of breach of contract. This contract had taken place at Mumbai. No part of it has been executed in the city of Allahabad. From the entire records it is ## Text 1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.20113 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J. First Appeal From Order No. - 379 of 1996 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Hareshwar Singh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.K.Jaiswal Sri S.K. Mehrotra Counsel for the Respondents: Ranjeet Kumar Mishra Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 140-no fault liability-incorporated by amendmenteffective from 14.08.1994-admittedly accident took place on 01.08.1994amended provision can not be made with retrospective effect-tribunal committed gross error-not sustainable. Held: Para 11 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in awarding interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- in case of permanent injury for an accident which took place on 14.8.94. On the relevant date on account of no fault liability interim compensation to the extent of Rs.12,500/- alone was admissible. Case law discussed: 2010(3) T.A.C. 879 (Orissa); AIR 2008 SC 2276 (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. ) 1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra and Sri Archit Mehrotra on behalf of defendantappellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Sri Ranjeet Kumar Mishra for the claimant-respondents. 2. The appeal is directed against the interim award dated 14.2.96 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC No. 53 of 1995. 3. The accident had taken place on 14.8.94 and the claim petition was presented in 1995. By the impugned order dated 14.2.96 a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on account of no fault liability subject to final adjudication of the claim under Section 166 of the Act. 4. It may be noted that the claim under Section 166 of the Act has not finally been adjudicated probably on account of the interim order operating in the present appeal. 5. The submission of Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant is that the provision for award of Rs.25,000/- under Section 140(2) of the Act was made by an amendment with effect from 14.11.1994 vide Act No.54 of 1994 whereby the limit of no fault of liability in the case of permanent injury was enhanced from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.25,000. 6. The accident had taken place on 14.8.94 and therefore, the amended provision would not apply and as such the tribunal committed an error in awarding interim award of Rs.25,000/-. 7. It is admitted position that initially in the case of permanent injury no fault liability was only to the extent of Rs.12,500/-. It was increased to Rs.25,000/- with effect from 14.11.1994. 3 All] Sumit Rajendra Bhalotia V. State of U.P. and another 1175 8. The amendment is not retrospective in nature. The amended provision of Section 140(2) as such would not be applicable to an accident which had taken place earlier to the amendment i.e. 14.8.94. 9. In Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nagendra Sethi and others 2010(3) T.A.C. 879 (Orissa) his Lordship of the Orissa High Court while considering a similar controversy held that where an accident had taken place on 14.8.94 i.e. prior to the amendment, the amended provisions enforced with effect from 14.11.94 would not be applicable as they are not retrospective in nature. 10. Even the Apex Court in State of Punjab & others Vs. Bhajan Kaur and others AIR 2008 SC 2276 laid down that amendment to Section 140 of the Act vide Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.94 is not retrospective and would not be applicable to accidents prior to said date. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in awarding interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- in case of permanent injury for an accident which took place on 14.8.94. On the relevant date on account of no fault liability interim compensation to the extent of Rs.12,500/- alone was admissible. 12.. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. Interim award dated 14.2.96 is modified and is confined to Rs.12,500/- with further direction that the balance amount of Rs.12,500/- which has been deposited pursuant to the interim order of this court dated 21.5.96 shall continue to remain deposited and would abide by the final decision of the claim petition. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J. Criminal Misc. Application No 1241 of 2010 Sumit Rajendra Bhalotia ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Umesh Kumar Dwivedi A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482summoning order-offence U/S 420/406 IPC-from bare perusal of complaint-clear case of breach of contract-pure civil nature dispute-all transaction made at Mumbai-no part of transaction at Allahabad-Magistrate passed Summoning order on mechanical manner-Court expressed its great displeasure-regarding conduct of Judicial Officer-Summoning order quashed. Held: Para 12 I have gone through all the three case laws mentioned above. In the instant case prima facie there is nothing which may indicate that the applicant has any dishonest intention when he entered into the contract with opposite party no. 2. Therefore, summoning of the applicant under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be allowed to sustain. From the perusal of the complaint itself it is evident that it is a simple case of breach of contract. This contract had taken place at Mumbai. No part of it has been executed in the city of Allahabad. From the entire records it is