Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1831 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Charan Vijay

2014-11-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 23.3.2006 passed by MACT, Ajmer, hence the arguments have been heard and both the aforesaid appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.5.1993 at about 9-10 a.m. in the morning, when the deceased Chandra Prakash @ Pankaj along with a pillion rider Shri Kailash Narain (another deceased in the said accident) was going on the Moped Hero Puck towards Anaj Mandi, suddenly a Mini Truck No. RJ-01/0241 came in rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle, as a result of which both the aforesaid persons sustained injuries and ultimate died. Two claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal claiming different amount of compensations on account of death of Chandra Prakash @ Pankaj and Kailash Narayan Sharma. 3. Thereafter the summons were issued to the respondents and even after service of summons, no written statement of defence was filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. On 27.11.2004, in the interest of justice, an opportunity was granted to them to file the written statement of defence, no cost also, but they failed to do so and resultantly on 30.11.2014, the opportunity to file the written statement of defence was closed. The claimants submitted the oral as well as document evidence in support of their claim, but no evidence was adduced by the non claimants No.2 and 3. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 23.3.2006, awarding Rs. 2,80,400/- in claim petition No. 110/2005 (443/2003) on account of death of Chandra Prakash @ Pankaj and Rs. 8,61,000/- in claim petition No.110/2015 (94/2004) on account of death of Kailash Narayan Sharma. 4. Against the said judgment and award, both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Insurance Co. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal while passing he award dated 23.3.2006 has passed the same without considering the provisions of Principle of Natural Justice. 4. Against the said judgment and award, both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Insurance Co. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal while passing he award dated 23.3.2006 has passed the same without considering the provisions of Principle of Natural Justice. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the averments so made by the appellant company in the written arguments, and relying on the same, it was prayed that the claim petitions were not maintainable and the appellant company was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents-claimants, but the learned Tribunal has not dealt with the submissions so made on behalf of the appellant company. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the award had not framed any issues in regard to the adjudication of the present claim petition. He has further contended that the Tribunal has not properly dealt with the statement of AW-1 Shiv Charan, AW-2 Smt. Manju and AW-3 Rakesh and thus the finding given by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the material on record and hence, the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and proper. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment and award. 8. During the course of arguments, this court posed a question to learned counsel for the Insurance Co. as to whether any reply has been filed or not and whether any evidence, oral or documentary, was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the Insurance Co. or not, to which he replied that neither any reply has been filed nor any evidence was submitted before the learned Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants remained unrebutted. The defence, which had not been raised before the Tribunal, cannot be permitted to be raised at the appellate stage by way of these appeals. 9. In this view of the matter, the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants remained unrebutted. The defence, which had not been raised before the Tribunal, cannot be permitted to be raised at the appellate stage by way of these appeals. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and thus, the appeals filed by the appellants having no substance deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly after confirming the judgment and award passed by the leanred Tribunal.