Partly allowed

National Insurance Comp v. Kailash Goswami

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2016CMA/85/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court quashed the award on two specific issues, remanded them for fresh hearing, and directed immediate disbursement of 50% of the deposited award amount to claimants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award on issues 3 and 4 quashed; matter remanded for fresh hearing; 50% of deposited award to be disbursed immediately.

National Insurance Comp Vs Kailash Goswami — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶3

J U D G M E N T

¶4

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.85/2004 National Insurance Company Ltd vs

¶5

Kailash Goswami and ors

¶6

DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 12/7/2016

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶8

Mr.Vizzy Agarwal, for appellant/s . Mr. RS Rathore for respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT.

¶11

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/s 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 appeal. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.3 and 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 3 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 aforesaid appeal.

¶12

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/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 may be permitted

¶13

to raise all the objections, grounds as have been raised in this appeal.

¶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 appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua on issue No.3 and 4 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, qua issue no.3 and 4 in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid appeal 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.

¶17

However, it is made clear that the claimant/s shall be entitled to get 50% amount out of total award amount so deposited by the appellant Ins. Company with the learned Tribunal immediately, and hence the learned Tribunal is directed that out of the award amount so deposited by the appellant Ins. Company, 50% amount shall be disbursed to the claimants upon moving an application before it, in accordance with the terms under the award immediately, and rest of the amount under the award shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank, but the same shall not be disbursed to the claimants till further orders of this court.

¶18

Both the parties request for specific date for appearing before the trial court, hence they are

¶19

directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 5/10/2016.

¶20

Record, if any, be sent back.

¶21

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶22

¶23

All coorections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being E-mailed.

¶24

OM Prakash PA

National Insurance Comp v. Kailash Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Comp v. Kailash Goswami

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

Manju Songra Vs Director Commissioner, Eleme

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

National Insurance Company Lim Vs Kripa Shankar Tripathi and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gyarsi Lal Gurjar

Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ranjeet Singh Vs R S R T C and Ors.