Rajasthan High Court
CSTAY/2279/2002 of NEMI CHAND SHARMA Vs NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD on 19 December 2003
COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1824/2002 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2799/2002 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Bharat Singh & Another) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 868/2002 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1824/2002S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2799/2002(National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus BharatSingh & Another)
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 868/2002
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1391/2002(National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt.Suman and others)
Date of Judgment
:: 4[th] October, 2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the InsuranceCo.Mr. Sanjay Tyagi for the respondent(s)
BY THE COURT:
Since both the aforesaid two appealsarise out of the judgment and award dated6.2.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal, hencethey are being decided by this commonjudgment.
At the very outset, learned counselfor the appellant submits that the learnedTribunal while passing the impugned award hasnot taken into consideration the grounds whichhe has raised by way of the aforesaid appeals.The finding of the learned Tribunal on issueno. 2 is contrary to the material available onrecord. Thus, the impugned award passed by thelearned Tribunal qua issue no. 2 be quashedand set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction todecide the matter afresh in the light ofobjections which he has raised by way of theaforesaid appeals.
E Converso, the learned counsel forthe respondents defended the impugned awardand stated the same to be just and apposite.
I have heard learned counsel for theparties and carefully perused the relevantmaterial on record including the impugnedaward.
In my considered view, the learnedTribunal while passing the impugned award hasnot gone through the facts of the case andpassed the impugned award surreptitiously.Thus, the impugned award passed by the learnedTribunal needs interference by this Court.
In the result, both the aforesaidappeals are partly allowed and the impugnedjudgment and award dated 6.2.2002 passed byMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, qua issue no.2 is quashed and set aside with the directionto the learned Tribunal to decide the matterafresh in the light of the grounds taken bylearned counsel for the appellant in theaforesaid appeals, after issuing notice to allthe concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.
Both the parties are directed toappear before the learned Tribunal on18.2.2013.
Consequent upon the disposal ofappeals, the stay applications, filedherewith, do not survive and they also standdisposed of.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J.
DKAll corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip KhandelwalPA