Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 403 (MP)

Shriram General Insurance Co. v. Vidhya Bai

2016-05-12

R.S.JHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.S. Jha, J. Having heard the learned counsel on I.A. No. 9373/2014 filed by the appellant for condonation of delay is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Also heard the learned counsel for the parties on admission. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that several claim cases arising out of the same accident that occurred on 1-11-2010 involving a dumper No. MP20-G/8521 were filed before the M.A.C.T., Jabalpur. It is submitted that on account of some mistake while the other cases have all been listed for further evidence, the present case was considered and decided without taking that aspect into consideration. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the present appeal the issue of liability of the appellant/Insurance Company is in dispute as the contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. It is stated that evidence in respect of this issue has been led before the M.A.C.T. and in such circumstances, as the decision on the said issue and other issues would also determine the fate of the present claim case, therefore, the impugned award be set aside and the case be remanded back to the M.A.C.T. for decision along with other claim cases pending before the M.A.C.T., details of which are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the memo of appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute this fact of pendency of claim cases arising out of the same accident before the M.A.C.T., Jabalpur. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and as the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company has been raised and the decision thereon would depend upon the evidence led by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present case should also have been decided along with the other cases arising out of the same accident. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned award dated 10-10-2013, passed by the Tenth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 156/2012 is set aside and the Claim Case No. 156/2012 is remanded back to the Tenth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur for fresh decision therein along with Claim Case Nos. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned award dated 10-10-2013, passed by the Tenth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 156/2012 is set aside and the Claim Case No. 156/2012 is remanded back to the Tenth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur for fresh decision therein along with Claim Case Nos. 115/2010 (Dharmendra v. Raj Kamal Tiwari), 116/2010 (Uttam Lal Jharia v. Raj Kamal Tiwari), 117/2010 (Ghanshyam Jharia v. Raj Kamal Tiwari), 118/2010 (Smt. Sonu Bai v. Raj Kamal Tiwari), 126/2010 (Smt. Vidya Bai v. Guddu) and 44/2011 (Smt. Shakun Bai v. Raj Kamal Tiwari) in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions remanding the claim case to the Tenth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company stands allowed.