Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Shri Sohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Shri Om Prakash Sharma & others - Respondents
FAO No. 458 of 2009
Decided on : 04.03.2016
Res Judicata - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The court set aside the impugned award and dismissed the claim petition on the grounds of res judicata, as the claimant had filed a second claim petition on the same cause of action after the first claim petition had been dismissed by another tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favor of the claimant. The appellant argued that the claimant had filed a previous claim petition on the same cause of action, which was dismissed by another tribunal, but this fact was not discussed in the impugned award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second claim petition was hit by the principle of res judicata and set aside the impugned award, dismissing the claim petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the second claim petition filed by the claimant on the same cause of action was barred by the principle of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second claim petition was hit by the principle of res judicata, as the claimant had already filed a previous claim petition on the same cause of action, which had been dismissed by another tribunal.
Final Decision: The impugned award was set aside, the claim petition was dismissed, and the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chi Chief Justice (oral)
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 10th January, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 2-NL/2 of 2004, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and against the owner and driver (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’).
2. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the appellant-owner argued that the owner has taken specific plea in reply to the claim petition that the claimant had filed MACT Case No. 198 of 14.11.2003, titled Om Parkash Sharma versus Parkash & others, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, which was dismissed, on merits, vide award dated 1.4.2005. The Tribunal has not discussed the said fact in the impugned award.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has produced a certified copy of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, in the aforesaid claim petition, made part of the file.
4. The second claim petition filed by the claimant before the Tribunal, on the same cause of action, was hit by the principle of resjudicata and was to be dismissed.
5. Having said so, the impugned award is set aside, the claim petition is dismissed and the appeal is disposed of.
6. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
