Allowed

Net Ram v. Amit Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012FAO/2798/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appeal against an Award holding vehicle owner liable. Court noted conflicting Aaways on same accident. Ordered remand to Tribunal for re-examination and evidence, instructing insurer to satisfy award if finding remains unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Impugnied Award set aside; remanded to Tribunal for re-examination; parties to reappear; respondent Insurance Company directed to satisfy original award.

Net Ram Vs Amit Kumar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.2798 of 2009 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No.2798 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2012

Net Ram

....Appellant

Versus

Amit Kumar and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.NK Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.5-Insurance Company

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶14

CM Nos. 14007-08 CII of 2009

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 30 days in refiling and 13 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Applications stand disposed of.

¶17

FAO No.2798 of 2009

¶18

The owner-appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned Award dated 18.9.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which, the claim petition was allowed and the appellant-owner of the offending Tanker was held liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence at

¶20

FAO No.2798 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶21

the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the appellant. He has filed an application i.e. CM No.19663 -CII of 2010, vide which he wants to place on record the copy of Award dated 15.2.2010, passed in MACT No.32 of 2005, by the learned Tribunal, in the other claim petition, arisen out of the same accident, by way of additional evidence, wherein, the liability had been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has stated that in the said connected MACT case, the licence was not placed on record and the finding were recorded against the driver of the offending driver.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶24

case file.

¶25

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application No.19663CII of 2010, the same is allowed. The copy of award passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT case No.32 of 2005, is taken on record. Even otherwise, this Court can take judicial notice of the award passed by the learned Tribunal in a claim petition arising out of the same accident. A perusal of the impugned Awards dated 18.9.2008, and the dated 15.2.2010, arising out of the same accident, it emerges that there is divergence of judicial opinion.

¶26

Resultantly, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned Award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to examine all the documents furnished in MACT case No. 32 of 2005, which resulted into recording of divergent legal opinion and passing of the Awards, which are not reconcilable. The parties shall be afforded full

¶27

FAO No.2798 of 2009 (O&M) 3

¶28

opportunity to lead their respective evidence.

¶29

However, in the first instance, the respondent No.5, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award and recover the same, in case, on examination of the evidence led, the same conclusion as reached in the impugned award is reached.

¶30

The parties to appear before the learned Tribunal on 25.2.2012.

¶31

12.01.2012 gsv

¶32

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Net Ram v. Amit Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Net Ram v. Amit Kumar and Ors.

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

Neha Anand Vs Rahul Anand etc.

Manju Gulati Vs Umesh Gulati @ Toni

Jagir Kaur Vs Tejinder Pal Singh

Anita Vs Avtar Singh

Kamlesh Patel Vs Avtar Singh

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anita and Ors.