AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honorable Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya
ADMIT. Mr. Modi, learned counsel appears and waives admission on behalf of respondent No. 1-original claimant.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.05.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Narmada at Rajpipala (the Tribunal) in M.A.C.P. No. 1713 of 2006 as well as the order passed in Review Application No. 4 of 2010 dated 18.12.2010 by the Tribunal.
The relevant facts arising out of the present appeal are that the original claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, filed the present MACP alleging that a jeep belonging to respondent No. 3 herein, registered under RTO registration No. GJ-C-4116 was being driven by the driver of the jeep i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, in rash and negligent manner, because of which an accident occurred on 25.02.2005 and, inter alia, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs against the owner, driver as well as the present insurance company. For the reasons stated by the present appellant viz. to the effect that as there was change in jurisdiction from Bharuch to Rajpipla, the panel advocate of the appellant- insurance company could not remain present and, therefore, an ex- parte award came to be passed by the Tribunal on 14.05.2008, which is impugned in the present appeal. The appellant- insurance company thereafter filed a review application, however, the Tribunal vide order dated 18.12.2010 rejected the said review application. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before us.
We have heard Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Modi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, original claimant. So far as the other respondents are concerned, their presence would not be required at this stage.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1- original claimant declares before the Court that if the matter is remanded only on the point of deciding as to whether the vehicle involved in the accident was the jeep car bearing RTO registration No. GJ- 17-C-4116 or jeep car bearing RTO registration No. GJ- 17-C-4110, his client has no objection for such purpose.
Mr. Modi submits that as the original claimant has been awaiting to receive the actual compensation by way of an award since 2008 and the accident had occurred way back on 25.02.2005, the insurance company, in spite of the award and in absence of any prohibitory orders, has not deposited any amount before this Court and, therefore, urges that while remanding the matter back to the Tribunal the insurance company may be directed to deposit the amount awarded before the Tribunal. He further submitted that considering the said aspect this Court may award reasonable cost and may also permit withdrawal of the amount to the extent as it may be found proper or in the alternative, direction may be issued to the Tribunal to decide the matters on this point within some specified time limit.
As such the identity of the vehicle, which is really involved in the accident, is a crucial aspect to be decided in the claim petition. As specifically averred by the appellant herein the Tribunal is required to decide the said issue on the basis of the evidence before it. We find that no further discussion would be required when learned Counsel for the original claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, is agreeable for remand. At the same time, appropriate cost deserves to be awarded to the original claimant since it is not on account of his fault, he is faced with the present litigation.
As regards the aspect of withdrawal is concerned, we find that it can wait for some time. In the meantime, the amount already deposit can be ordered to be invested so as to avoid loss of interest.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside with further direction that the matter shall stand restored to the file of the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall examine the aspect of the facts and circumstances and the vehicle involved in the accident and if required the Tribunal shall permit the parties to lead evidence but only on this particular point and thereafter shall pass a fresh award in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. As the accident is of 2005, the Tribunal shall conclude the aforesaid direction preferably within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.
It is further directed that the appellant shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1-original claimant and the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimant.
It is also directed that the Tribunal shall invest the amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company, pending the appeal, and such investment shall be made with the nationalized bank for a period of one year and may be renewed, if required, till the fresh award is passed. After award is passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to appropriate the amount, unless there is any prohibitory order of any competent forum known to law.
Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.