SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(J&K) 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.
Gh. Nabi Turrey – Petitioner
Versus
Farooq Ahmad Thokar & Anr. – Respondents
Mac App No. 9 of 2021
Decided On : 13-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.A. Qayoom, Mian Tufail
For the Respondent: J.H. Reshi

The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice, the ownership of the vehicle, and the failure to deliver copies of the award within the stipulated time period.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Motor Accident Claims - Sections 166, 168(2) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Ex-parte award passed without notice to appellant - Award set aside - Matter remanded for rehearing and deciding in accordance with law

Fact of the Case:

The claim petition was filed by the respondent against the appellant and another, stating that the appellant was driving a vehicle that caused an accident resulting in serious injuries to the respondent. The appellant contested the claim, arguing that he was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent had wrongly implicated him. The appellant also claimed that he was not served with a notice and the award was passed ex-parte without affording him an opportunity to be heard.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the award was passed in violation of natural justice as the appellant was not served with a notice and was not given an opportunity to be heard. The court also found that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and the respondent had failed to prove the ownership of the vehicle. Additionally, the court noted that the claims tribunal had failed to deliver the copies of the award to the appellant within the stipulated time period.

Issues: Violation of natural justice, ownership of the vehicle, failure to deliver copies of the award within the stipulated time period

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the award was passed in violation of natural justice and set it aside. The court also found that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent had failed to prove the ownership of the vehicle. Additionally, the court noted the failure of the claims tribunal to deliver the copies of the award within the stipulated time period.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for rehearing and deciding the same in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment after putting the parties to notice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment/ award dated 27th April, 2019, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shopian insofar as the appellant is concerned.

2. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to give a concise factual background of the case with a view to decide the issue in question:-

    FACTS OF THECASE

(i) That the claim petition came to be preferred by the respondent no. 1, against the appellant and respondent no. 2, before the Presiding Officer MACT, Shopian on 14th March, 2018, stating therein that on 21.08.2015, the respondent no. 2 was driving the offending vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Registration No. JK01/6321, which came from Shopian towards Kulgam at a very high speed, and when the same reached Memandar near the petrol pump, the same hit respondent no. 1 who was coming from Kulgam towards Shopian on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. JK13B/2944, and he was injured seriously. The specific case of the appellant is that the respondent no. 1 was immediately taken to the hospital in Shopian wherefrom he was referred to SKIMS Soura, because of his critical condition he was treated there for one month and twenty days as he had multiple fractures in his left leg and has serious injuries in his head, ribs and arms and had to undergo different surgeries, some are described in the discharge report.

(ii) The further case of the appellant is that along with the claim petition, the respondent no. 1 has filed an application for interim relief under section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but it is the specific stand of the appellant that the Tribunal did not pass any orders on the said application.

(iii) The further stand of the appellant is that in the claim petition, notice is deemed to have been issued to the appellant and Respondent No. 2, and from the perusal of the award it is apparent that the respondent no. 2 has appeared through his counsel and appellant was proceeded as ex-parte as according to the Tribunal, the appellant did not appear, despite service. The specific stand of the appellant in the present appeal is that the record of the Tribunal reveals that the counsel who represented respondent no. 2 sought time on 6th October, 2018, to file objections, but he did not appear thereafter before the Tribunal, and, accordingly, he too was proceeded ex-parte. It has been further pleaded by the appellant that the respondent no. 1, thereafter, produced two witnesses in support of his claim and also appeared as his own witnesses, and it was on the basis of the said witnesses, the Tribunal in terms of the impugned award dated 27th April, 2019, awarded an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in his favour to be paid by the appellant and respondent no. 2 along with interest at the rate of 6% Per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its full realization. The Tribunal also directed that the appellant and respondent no. 2, will pay the amount within a period of thirty days from the date of serving of the award to them failing which, it was made clear that they have to pay the additional rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

(iv) The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since the award dated 27th April, 2019, have been passed in ex-parte and feeling aggrieved of the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the following amongst the other grounds:-

(a) That the appellant is not the owner of alleged offending vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Registration No. JK01/6321. The vehicle actually belonged to Fareeda Bano, who sold the same to one Mohammad Ismail Bakshi S/o Abdul Khaliq Bakshi R/o Ram Nagri Shopian, Tehsil/District Shopain for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- on 16.11.2013 and handed over the possession of the said vehicle to him along with the relevant documents on 16.11.2013 i

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        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

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top