Partly allowed

Khyali Ram v. the Oriental Fire and General

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2012CMA/528/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award on Issue No. 4 was erroneous as it ignored the appellant's grounds and did not examine the facts. The award was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award dated 13.12.2006 on Issue No. 4 quashed; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision.

Khyali Ram Vs the Oriental Fire and General — 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. 528/2007 (Khyali Ram Versus The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Judgment :: 4^th October, 2012

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. K.N. Tiwari, counsel for the appellant Mr. Gaurav Gupta), Counsel for the respondents Mr. Manish Gupta)

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

This is a Civil Misc. Appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 13.12.2006 passed by MACT, Kotputli.

¶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 no. 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 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 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 13.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, qua issue no. 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 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

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J.

¶19

¶20

¶21

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

Khyali Ram v. the Oriental Fire and General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khyali Ram v. the Oriental Fire and General

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

Aamar Singh and Ors. Vs Mst Ramshree and Ors.

Smt Shashi Jain Vs Narsi Lal

Bajaj Allianz General Insuranc Vs Sohan Lal and Ors.

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

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

Abdul Kayum Vs Dhanraj and Ors.