Partly allowed

Mangal Ram v. Ajeet and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2012CMA/1426/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment appeals against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court found the Tribunal failed to consider the facts and grounds raised. It quashed the award on specific issues and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing with notice to parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award on issues nos. 2 and 4 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision after notice and hearing; directions to appear by 18.2.2013.

Mangal Ram Vs Ajeet and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1428/2005 (Lal Mohammad Versus Ajeej & Another)

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1426/2005 (Mangal Ram Versus Ajeej & Another)

¶6

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1603/2005 (Sita Ram Versus Ajeej & Another)

¶7

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2712/2005 (Ram Narain & Ors. Versus Ajeej & Another)

¶8

Date of Judgment :: 5^th October, 2012

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Mathur, counsel for the claimantsappellan(s)

¶11

Mr. Sudeep Mathur for Mr. Bharat Yadav, counsel for the non claimant(s)-respondent(s)

¶12

BY THE COURT :

¶13

Since all the aforesaid four appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 5^th March, 2005 passed by the learned Tribunal, hence they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the grounds which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeals. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue nos. 2 and 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award

¶15

¶16

passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue nos. 2 and 4 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of objections which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeals. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶17

i) Abdul Jabbar Versus Kesar reported in 1998 (1) TAC 187 (Raj.).

¶18

ii) UIIC Versus K.M. Poonam reported in MACD 2011 (SC) 51.

¶19

E Converso, the learned counsel for the non claimants respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award.

¶21

In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this Court.

¶22

In the result, all the aforesaid four

¶23

¶24

appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 5.3.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, qua issue nos. 2 and 4 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the grounds taken by learned counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid appeals and the aforesaid judgments, if applicable, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

¶25

Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.2.2013.

¶26

However, it is made clear that if any amount has been received by the claimants under the impugned award, the said amount shall not be recovered from them.

¶27

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J.

¶28

¶29

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA

Mangal Ram v. Ajeet and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Ram v. Ajeet and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khyali Ram Vs the Oriental Fire and General

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Satish Kr and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Roop Chand and Ors.

Devraj and Ors. Vs Narendra Singh and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs Smt Rama and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tara Chand and Ors.