Remanded

M/S Aggarwal Refractory P. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Other

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2012FAO/1625/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding the validity of a driver's license. The Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision after ensuring the appellant and driver were given a proper opportunity to lead evidence on the license's veracity obtained via RTI.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is set aside on issue No.3; the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after giving parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the license's veracity; statutory amo

M/S Aggarwal Refractory P. Ltd… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.1625 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 1625 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 20.4.2012

¶6

M/S Aggarwal Refractory Pvt Ltd. ...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: - Mr. G.S. Duhan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent.

¶12

JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.(ORAL):

¶13

Heard. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

C.M. Stands disposed of.

¶15

Main appeal

¶16

1.The owner-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 15.5.2002, passed in MACT Case No.3 of 2000.

¶17

2.Learned counsel for the appellant states that he procured copy

¶18

of the original driving license from the concerned Licensing Authority obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further states that the said copy of the license was not available with the learned Tribunal for scrutiny and the impugned award was passed without considering the same. Thus, this material piece of evidence could not be taken note of in this appeal.

¶19

FAO No.1625 of 2011

¶20

-2-

¶21

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

4.In this case the appellant-owner was not represented before the Tribunal for want of proper service. The appellant has a strong ground to defend that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. It was due to absence of the driver and owner who were ex-parte before the Tribunal, that issue No.3 was not properly and correctly decided. The findings on issue No.3 are reversed, the learned tribunal will decide this issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on issue No.3. and thereafter decide the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation.

¶23

5.In view of the above, this Court feels that it would be fair and just, if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for the limited purpose to arrive at a finding regarding veracity of the license obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal through their counsel on 31.5.2012.

¶25

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to him.

¶26

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶27

20.4.2012 aarti

M/S Aggarwal Refractory P. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aggarwal Refractory P. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Other

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

Prabhjot Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rani & Ors. Vs Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala & Ors.

Shimla Devi Vs Pardeep and Ors.

Amritpal Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Kaur & Anr.

Prem Devi and Ors. Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.