HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 456 / 2017 Smt. Rani Ahuja W/o Shri Harish Ahuja, by Caste Punjabi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o TR 25, Civil Lines, Tonk (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Mandi Ka Rasta, Nathmalpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Vishal Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Regional Manager ----Respondents _____________________________________________________

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Bansal.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Judgment / Order

31/01/2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties and after hearing both the parties, the appeal/s is/are being disposed of at this stage.

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

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/s. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no. 3 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 3 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.

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

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

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.

In the result, the appeal/s is/are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua on aforesaid issue/s is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, qua the aforesaid issue/s in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid appeal/s 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.

Both the parties request for specific date for appearing before the trial court, hence they are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 1/6/2017.

Record, if any, be sent back.

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

om Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)