Remanded

Samadhan Shankar Pawar v. Divisional Controller Msrtc Aurangabad and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2012FA/1651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a first appeal against a Motor Vehicles Act award. It allowed the appellant to amend the claim petition, quashed the previous tribunal award to grant parties an opportunity to adduce evidence on the new paragraph, and remitted the matter to the tribunal for a fresh decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned Award and Judgment; set aside the award to allow amendment and adduce evidence; relegated the matter to the Tribunal.

Samadhan Shankar Pawar Vs Divisional Controller Msrtc… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 F.A. 1651.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1651 OF 2012

¶5

Samadhan Shankar Pawar V/s Divisional Controller, MSRTC & Anr.

¶6

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 11/12/2012. Mr. G.R.Syed, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. Ranjana Reddy, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. ...........................

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

This is an Appeal filed against the Award passed U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [ For short, ' M.V. Act ' ] seeking enhancement in the compensation amount.

¶9

The present appellant had filed claim petition U/s 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of the disability sustained by him in an accident. The same is partly allowed. The applicant is granted compensation of ` 60,000/- [ Rupees Sixty Thousand only ]. Feeling aggrieved by non grant of the total compensation as claimed, the appellant has filed the present Appeal.

¶10

2 F.A. 1651.2012

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶12

The present appellant had filed an application for amendment, thereby seeking amendment in the claim petition by incorporating para No. 2-A as proved. I have allowed the amendment application.

¶13

In view of the fact that the said amendment has been allowed, the parties will have to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on the same.

¶14

In light of the above, the impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 07/01/2013. The Tribunal shall allow the petitioner to amend the claim petition by incorporating para No. 2-A as was prayed in C.A. No. 13671 of 2012. The Tribunal shall afford an opportunity to all the parties to adduce evidence and shall thereafter decide the claim petition expeditiously and preferably within six (6) months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶15

The appellant has withdrawn the amount deposited by the respondent pursuant to the Award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant may retain the said amount till the disposal of

¶16

3 F.A. 1651.2012

¶17

the claim petition by the Tribunal. Further Orders could be passed by the Tribunal in consonance with the claim petition U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶18

The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶19

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶20

KNP/F.A. 1651.2012

Samadhan Shankar Pawar v. Divisional Controller Msrtc Aurangabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Shankar Pawar v. Divisional Controller Msrtc Aurangabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Divnl Lmanager Vs Dilip Rambhau Kamble and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Office Vs Baldevsingh Narsingh Jadhav and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Office Vs Baldevsingh Narsingh Jadhav and Anr.

Jahiroddin Mushiroddin Vs Suresh Madhavrao Gade

Pramilabai Tarachand Marathe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.