- (1.) APPLICATION under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and minor daughters of deceased Shyokaran are ordered to be impleaded as claimants-appellants no.4 to 7. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is also allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the documents annexed with the application are also ordered to be taken on record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard together and both the appeals arising out of one judgment and award passed by MACT are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the non claimant 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. 1 and 3 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 1 and 3 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua issue no. 1 and 3 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) 2010 ACC (III) 130 - Yashpal Loothra / United India Insurance Co. ii) 2010 RAR 50 (SC) – United India Insurance Co. Versus Bhagna Laxmi iii) 2006 RAR 280 (Raj.) - Shanker Lal Versus Nand Lal iv) 1999 (3) TAC 209 – Rukmani Versus NIC E Converso, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that he has also filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue no. 2 and 5 is contrary to the material on record. In case this Court is remanding the matter, then the learned Tribunal may be directed to consider the grounds, which have been raised by him by way of the aforesaid 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.
(3.) IN the result, both the aforesaid appeals are partly allowed and the impugned award dated 6.6.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, qua issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, qua issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties in the aforesaid appeals and the aforesaid judgments, 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 are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.3.2013.;