Partly allowed

Kesar Devi and Others v. Raghunath Mali and Others

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2016CMA/3518/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed appeals filed by the insurance company against the MACT's judgment and award. The court quashed specific issues of the award as they were passed surreptitiously without considering objections and directed the Tribunal to decide them afresh after giving parties an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award on issue No. 1, 4, 5 and 6 passed by the Tribunal are quashed and set aside with a direction to decide the matter afresh.

Kesar Devi and Others Vs Raghunath Mali and Others — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶4

J U D G M E N T

¶5

1.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1812/2015 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶6

¶7

Smt.Keshar Devi and ors

¶8

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1811/2015 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶9

¶10

Raghunath Saini and ors

¶11

3.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1813/2015 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶12

¶13

Vinay Kumar and ors

¶14

4.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1816/2015 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶15

¶16

Smt.Vimla Devi and ors

¶17

5.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1814/2015 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶18

¶19

Hari Singh and ors

¶20

6.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.3518/2015

¶21

Smt.Keshar Devi and ors

¶22

7.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2854/2015 Raghunath Saini and ors

¶23

Liladhar and ors

¶24

8.S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2880/2015 Smt. Vimla Devi and ors

¶25

Liladhar and ors

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶27

Mr.Virendra Agarwal, Mr. CS Jodha and Mr. RS Bhati for insurance company

¶28

¶29

Mr.Vinay Mathur and Mr. DK Bhardswaj for claimants.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and after hearing both the parties, the appeals are being disposed of at this stage.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT.

¶32

At the very outset, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the objections which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeals. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no. 1,4,5 and 6 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 1,4,5 and 6 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 aforesaid appeal.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant/s though opposed the same but requested that the learned Tribunal may be directed to hear him/them at the time of deciding the matter afresh on the aforesaid issue/s, and he/they may be permitted to raise all the objections, grounds as have been raised in this appeal.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua on issue No. 1,4,5 and 6 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as

¶37

¶38

early as possible, qua issue no. 1,4,5 and 6 in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid appeals and the aforesaid judgment, if applicable and other judgments to be cited by learned counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

¶39

Both the parties request for specific date for appearing before the trial court, hence they are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 5/3/2017.

¶40

Record, if any, be sent back.

¶41

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶42

Kesar Devi and Others v. Raghunath Mali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesar Devi and Others v. Raghunath Mali and Others

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

Prem Lata Vs State and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Ranjeet Singh and Ors.

Kum Lakshmi Vs Parvej and Ors.

Ejad @ Ahjad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Himmat Singh Rathore Vs Banna Ram Jat

Mukesh Kumar Saini and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.