Serial No. 13

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Mac App No. 59/2020

CM No. 1885/2020

In

Cr. Obj No. 1/2020

Mac App No. 59/2020

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Advocate

v/s

Parveen Akhter and others …Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate vice

Mr. Raghu Metha, Advocate

Cr. Obj No. 1/2020

Parveen Akhter …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate vice

Mr. Raghu Metha, Advocate

v/s

Mohd. Taj and others …Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

Mac App No. 59/2020

1.

In the instant appeal, award dated 24.05.2018 (for short, >the

impugned order?) passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (for

short, the >Tribunal?) in claim petition bearing No. 73/Claim, titled as

<Parveen Akhter vs. Mohd. Taj and others=, is being assailed.

2 Mac App No. 59/2020

2.

The facts as emerging from the memo of the appeal reveal that the

respondent No. 1 herein filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on

account of injuries sustained in a vehicular accident dated 19.07.2016 while

travelling in a tempo bearing registration No. JK11B-0978 due to rash and

negligent driving of respondent No. 2 herein.

3.

It is being stated that upon receipt of a notice from the Tribunal in

the claim petition, the appellant herein entered appearance and filed detailed

objections. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to have not appeared before

the Tribunal in response to the notice issued.

4.

It is being further stated that the Tribunal framed issues upon the

pleadings of the parties and directed leading of evidence whereupon it is

being stated that the respondent No. 1 besides appearing herself as a witness

examined two other witnesses namely Naseem Akhter and Dr. Abdul Salam.

The appellant herein is stated to have not produced any witness or led any

evidence and thereafter the Tribunal is stated to have passed the impugned

award.

5.

The award is being challenged inter-alia on the following

grounds:-

a. That the Award impugned is bad in the eyes of law, as the same

has been passed contrary to the facts as well as law, therefore,

the same is liable to be set aside.

b. That the Learned Tribunal below has passed the impugned

Award, while totally ignoring the evidence adduced as well as

pleas raised by the Appellant Company in support of its

3 Mac App No. 59/2020

defense, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on this

count also.

c. That while passing the impugned Award, the Learned Tribunal

below erred in considering the fact that as per the MLC and also

as per the FIR/Challan, as annexed by the Claimant/Respondent

No.l herself along with the Claim Petition, it was clearly

mentioned that as a result of the alleged accident, the

Respondent No.l suffered simple injuries, as such, it can be

safely inferred that she would not have suffered any kind of

disability, whatsoever, as a result of the alleged accident; thus,

in view of this fact also, the impugned Award i