BY THE COURT:
Since both the appeals arise out of one judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the objections which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeals. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue no. 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 4 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of objections which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeals. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
i) 2005 ACJ (SC) 1 - Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
ii) 2007 ACJ (SC) 821 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Bai
iii) 2007 ACJ (SC) 818 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha
iv) 2004 ACJ (SC) 1 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh
v) 2004 (3) TAC (SC) 577 - National Insurance Co. v. Chinnamma
vi) 2006 (3) TAC (Raj.) 113 - National Ins. Co. v. Om Prakash
vii) 2009 ACJ (SC) 998 - New India Ass. Co. v. Sadanand Mukhi
viii) 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC) - Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan
ix) 2005 ACJ (SC) 1323 - National Ins. Co. v. Prembai Patel
x) 1997 ACJ (SC) 1065 - United India Ins. Co. v. Gian Chand
xi) II (2010) ACC (SC) 518 - New India Ass. Co. Ltd. v. Kusum
E converso, the learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue no. 2 is contrary to the material on record. In case this Court is remanding the matter, then the learned Tribunal may be directed to decide issue no. 2 afresh. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum reported in (2011) 8 SCC 142. He further submits that the claimants in appeal no. 5000/2009 (Claim Petition No. 92/2007 (75/2004)) have not received a single penny, hence the learned Tribunal be directed to disburse at-least 50% amount under the award to the claimants.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award.
In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously.
Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this Court.
In the result both the civil misc. appeals are partly allowed and the impugned award dated 8.7.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, qua issue nos. 2 and 4 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh, as early as possible, in the light of the grounds raised by the appellants in the aforesaid appeals and the aforesaid judgments, if applicable and the other judgments to be cited by learned counsel for the parties, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.3.2013
The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse 50% amount under the award to the claimants in claim petition no. 92/2007 (75/2004) immediately, which have been deposited by the appellants. However, it is made clear that if any amount has been received by the claimants in claim petition no. 90/2007 (97-98), the same shall not be recovered from them.
Consequent upon the disposal of appeals, the stay applications also stand disposed of.