Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
N.K.Mody, J.
Gayatri Devi and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Narayan Swarup alias Narayan Das Thareja and Ors. - Respondent
M.A. No. 177 of 2004
Decided On : 29-07-2010
Documents - Claim Petition - Appellants allowed to file documents and adduce evidence
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the VII Additional MACT, Gwalior. Appellants, a widow and a minor, were unable to gather documentary evidence at the time of filing the claim petition.
Finding of the Court:
The appeal filed by the Appellants was allowed, and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal was set aside. The case was remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction that the Appellants shall be at liberty to file the documents and adduce evidence. The learned Tribunal was directed to decide the claim petition afresh.
Issues: Dismissal of claim petition due to lack of documentary evidence, legal representation of the Appellants
Ratio Decidendi: In a death case, the Appellants were allowed to file documents and adduce evidence, and the case was remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Appellants was allowed, and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal was set aside. The case was remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction that the Appellants shall be at liberty to file the documents and adduce evidence. The learned Tribunal was directed to decide the claim petition afresh.
N.K. Mody, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 31st July, 2003 passed by VII Additional MACT, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 26/2002 whereby the claim petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that in the FIR Appellants have not mentioned the vehicle number. It is submitted that Appellant No. 1 is widow, while Appellant No. 2 is minor. It is submitted that since the Appellant could not gather the documentary evidence, therefore, the same could not be filed before the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that now the documents are available with the Appellants. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstance of the case, appeal filed by the Appellants be allowed and the Appellants be permitted to file the documents.
3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition filed by the Appellants. It is submitted that the plea taken by the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 was that the Appellants are not legal representatives of deceased. It is submitted that this aspect of the case was not decided by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
4. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that it is a death case, appeal filed by the Appellants is allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction that the Appellants shall be at liberty to file the documents and adduce evidence. It is further directed that after taking into consideration evidence adduced by the parties, learned Tribunal shall decide the claim petition afresh. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 28th September, 2010.
5. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed off.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
