Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 722 (RAJ)

Saroj v. A. Palni Swami

2009-03-06

K.S.CHAUDHARI

body2009
Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ashok was travelling in Jeep No.M.P.07/H 1828 on 2.3.1996 and Tanker HNU 9877 collided with Jeep and caused death of Ashok. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said Tanker and it was insured by respondent No.2 whereas respondent No.3 is the owner of Jeep and the Jeep was insured by respondent No.4. 2. The Tribunal after recording evidence awarded claim of Rs.4,23,200/- against respondent No.1 and claim was dismissed against the respondent No.2 to 4. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent No.3 & 4. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 and service of notice upon respondent No.1 was effected by publication. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned tribunal has dismissed the claim against respondent No.2 on account of not producing driving license of the driver of Tanker and now he has filed driving license, along with judgment of MACT Gwalior pertaining to this accident, along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. which may be taken on record and the award may be passed against respondent No.2 also, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that learned Tribunal has not fastened liability on them, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed against them. 5. Perusal of the judgment reveals that the claim against respondent No.2 has been dismissed on account of non-filing of driving license of driver of the Tanker. Now along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. the appellant has filed certified copy of the driving license of the driver of Tanker, along with certified copy of judgment passed by the MACT Gwalior, which pertains to same accident and in that judgment the respondent NO.2 has been held liable, which judgment has been upheld by M.P. High Court in Misc. Appeal No.650/2001. In such circumstances certified copy of the driving license should be taken on record as it could not be filed as the appellants could not procure the copy of license earlier. No doubt copy of license has been filed after 7 years of obtaining it. In such circumstances this document is to be taken on record on heavy cost. 6. In such circumstances certified copy of the driving license should be taken on record as it could not be filed as the appellants could not procure the copy of license earlier. No doubt copy of license has been filed after 7 years of obtaining it. In such circumstances this document is to be taken on record on heavy cost. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4 submitted that they have not been held liable by the Tribunal and the MACT Gwalior has also not held them liable. In such circumstances, they may be exo-nerated whereas learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation from all the respondents. 7. In this appeal when the certified copy of driving license is taken on record, matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after considering the certified copy of the driving license and giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and in such circumstances, at this stage, this appeal cannot be dismissed against the respondent No.3 & 4 and the matter has to be remanded in toto. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the appellant is allowed subject to cost of Rs.1000/- payable equally to respondent No.3 & 4. The certified copy of driving license of S.Srinivasan along with certified copy of award of MACT Gwalior are taken on record and the matter is remanded to MACT Dholpur to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 9. Registry is directed to send certified copy of driving license and certified copy of award of MACT Gwalior along with record to the MACT Dholpur. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.