Partly allowed

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

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2012CMA/3960/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3960/2007, the High Court at Jaipur held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award without going through the facts of the case. The appeal was partly allowed; the award qua issue nos. 1 and 3 was quashed with a direction for retrial. The stay application was disposed of as it did not survive.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award qua issue nos. 1 and 3 is quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal with direction to decide afresh after notice and hearing.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tara Chand… — 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. 3960/2007 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 698/2007 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Tara Chand & Others)

¶5

Date of Judgment :: 5^th October, 2012

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Vinod Tyagi, counsel for the Insurance Co. Mr. K.N. Tiwari for the respondents

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

This is a Civil Misc. Appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 25.6.2007 passed by MACT, Jaipur.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant 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 appeal. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue nos. 1 and 3 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue nos. 1 and 3 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 grounds which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeal.

¶11

E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award

¶12

¶13

and stated the same to be just and apposite.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

In the result, the aforesaid appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 25.6.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, qua issue nos. 1 and 3 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 appellant in the aforesaid appeal, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

¶17

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

¶18

Consequent upon the disposal of appeal, the stay application, filed herewith,

¶19

¶20

does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.

¶21

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J.

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Mangal Ram Vs Ajeet and Ors.