Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Co. against the judgment and award passed by MACT. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant 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 appeal. 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 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 appeal. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. versus S. Rajapriya and others reported in : 2005 (2) TAC 305 (SC)
(2.) E . Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Smt. Sarla Verma and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in : 2008 -09 (Suppl) RAR 1 (SC) ii) NIC Versus Indra Srivastava reported in : 2008(1) TAC 424 (SC) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award.
(3.) 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.;