Sushilabai And Ors vs Sayed Tajuddin And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1439 Kant

                                    1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                              PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                                 AND

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

                  M.F.A. NO.202139/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:

1.     Sushilabai W/o Baliram Joge
       Age: 63 Years, Occ: Nil

2.     Ashok S/o Baliram Joge
       Age: 43 Years, Occ: Coolie

3.     Pralhad S/o Baliram Joge
       Age: 41 Years, Occ: Coolie

4.     Kisan S/o Baliram Joge
       Age: 38 Years, Occ: Coolie

5.     Govind S/o Baliram Joge
       Age: 33 Years, Occ: Coolie

6.     Umakant S/o Baliram Joge
       Age: 28 Years, Occ: Coolie

       All are R/o Jal Nagar, Vijayapura
                                               ... Appellants
(By Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Sayed Tajuddin S/o Siddik
       Age: 43 Years, Occ: Business
                                     2



       R/o D.No.20/954, Thiruspet
       Mulapet, Nellore(M)
       Andhra Pradesh-52400

2.     The Branch Manager
       Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
       2nd Floor, V.A. Kalburgi Square
       Deshpande Nagar, Desaid Cross
       Hubli-29
                                                         ... Respondents
(By Sri Rahul R. Asture, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1-served)

        This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of
MV Act, praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
judgment and award dated 10.07.2017 passed by the learned IV Addl.
District Judge & MACT-XIII, Vijayapur in MVC No.1822/2014 and pass
reasonable award or alternatively this court may kindly be pleased to
remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for a fresh trail providing
opportunity to lead the further evidence of appellant.

       This  appeal    coming      on     for    hearing,    this   day,
S.R.Krishna Kumar J., delivered the following:


                             JUDGMENT

This appeal by the claimants is directed against the

impugned judgment and award dated 10.07.2014 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapur (for short the

'Tribunal') whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants -

claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company

and perused the material on record. Respondent No.1 though

was served with the notice of this appeal, has chosen to

remain un-represented.

3. In additional to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record,

learned counsel for the insurance company submits that apart

from the fact that the Tribunal has not correctly and properly

considered and appreciated the material on record, the

claimants-appellants intend to adduce further oral and

documentary evidence in support of their claim and as such it

is necessary that one more opportunity needs to be granted to

the claimants to substantiate their contentions by setting aside

the impugned judgment and award and remit the matter back

to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the

claimants-appellants is placed on record.

5. Under these circumstances, without expressing any

opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, we

deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned

judgment and award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal

for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after giving

one more opportunity to the parties to adduce further oral and

documentary evidence, if they so desire.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.1822/2014 dated 10.07.2017 by the MACT-XIII & IV Addl. District Judge, Vijayapur is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after hearing both parties.

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce such further oral and documentary evidence, if any, in support of their claims.

(iv) Having regard to the fact that the claim petition is of the year 2014, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

(v) Registry to transmit the trial court record as well as copy of this judgment, forthwith to the Tribunal to proceed further in the matter as directed above.

(vi) All rival contentions are kept open. No opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL