1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5000/2009

S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.

3180/2009

(United India Insurance Company Versus Rajan &

Ors.)

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5001/2009

S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.

3181/2009

(United India Insurance Company Versus Bhagwan

Dei & Ors.)

Date of Judgment

:: 3^rd January, 2013

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. Amarnath Pareek, counsel for the appellants

Mr. Yogesh Singhal, counsel for the respondents

BY THE COURT:

Since both the appeals arise out of

one judgment and award passed by the learned

Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard

together and they are being decided by this

common judgment.

At the very outset, learned counsel

for the Insurance Company submits that the

learned Tribunal while passing the impugned

award has not taken into consideration the

objections which he has raised by way of the

aforesaid appeals. The finding of the learned

Tribunal on issue no. 4 is contrary to the

material available on record. Thus, the

impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal

2

qua issue no. 4 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 the aforesaid appeals. In support of

his contentions, he has placed reliance on the

following judgments:

i)

2005 ACJ (SC) 1 - Dhanraj Vs. New India

Assurance Co. Ltd

ii) 2007 ACJ (SC) 821 – New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. Versus Meena Bai

iii) 2007 ACJ (SC) 818 – Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd. Versus Jhuma Saha

iv) 2004 ACJ (SC) 1 – National Insurance Co.

Ltd. Versus Swarn Singh

v) 2004 (3) TAC (SC) 577 – National Insurance

Co. Versus Chinnamma

vi) 2006 (3) TAC (Raj.) 113 – National Ins. Co.

Versus Om Prakash

vii) 2009 ACJ (SC) 998 – New India Ass. Co.

Versus Sadanand Mukhi

viii) 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC) – Oriental Ins. Co.

Ltd. Versus Brij Mohan

ix) 2005 ACJ (SC) 1323 – National Ins. Co.

Versus Prembai Patel

x) 1997 ACJ (SC) 1065 – United India Ins. Co.

Versus Gian Chand

3

xi) II (2010) ACC (SC) 518 – New India Ass. Co.

Ltd. Versus Kusum & Others

E converso, the learned counsel for

the respondents also contended that the finding

of the learned Tribunal on issue no.2 is

contrary to the material on record. In case

this Court is remanding the matter, then the

learned Tribunal may be directed to decide

issue no.2 afresh. In support of his

contentions, he has placed reliance on the

judgment rendered in the case of Uttar Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation Versus Kulsum

and others reported in (2011) 8 Supreme Court

Cases 142. He further submits that the

claimants in appeal no. 5000/2009 (Claim

Petition No. 92/2007 {75/2004}) have not

received a single penny, hence the learned

Tribunal be directed to disburse at-least 50%

amount under the award to the claimants.

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.

4

Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned

Tribunal needs interference by this Court.

In the result both the civil misc.

appeals are partly allowed and the impugned

award dated 8.7.2009 passed by Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, qua issue nos. 2 and 4 is

quashed and set aside with the direction to the

learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh,

as early as possible, in the light of the

grounds raised by the appellants in the

aforesaid appeals and the aforesaid judgments,

if applicable and the other judgments to be

cited by learned counsel for the parties, after

issuing notice to al