tate of Punjab and Ors. Vs. urinder Kaur (D) & Ors. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 565-566 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1507-1508 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11598 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1507-1508 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11598 of 2001)
Petitioner: tate of Punjab and Ors.
Respondent: urinder Kaur (D) & Ors. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 565-566 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1507-1508 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11598 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1507-1508 of 2000)
With Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11598 of 2001)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2002
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sections 163, 170 with Evidence Act 1872 – Section 3. Award passed – Assailed in High Court – Fact over-looked that independent witness/ informant has not been examined. Held that orders are set-aside and matter remitted back to High Court. (Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted
2. The appellant is the State of Punjab. The motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) passed an award in favour of some claimants in respect of an accident involving a vehicle owned by the appellants. A sum of Rs. 3.36 lakhs had been awarded by the tribunal. When the appeal was filed before the High Court the same was disposed of by the impugned judgment. On going through the impugned judgment we found that the High Court took it for granted that evidence of one Rajinder Kumar being an independent witness is a reliable evidence. But we are told by the learned counsel for the appellant-state that the said premise was absolutely wrong since Rajinder Kumar was not even examined as a witness in this case.
3. We, thereupon, issued notice to the respondents. Today, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants admitted that the facts stated by the learned counsel regarding non-examination of Rajinder Kumar is true. This is borne out by the recitals made in the award of the tribunal itself.
4. It appears that the High Court has only seen the FIR statement of Rajinder Kumar but the premise that Rajinder Kumar is an independent witness and his evidence worthy of acceptance was made without any basis.
5. We, feel that the appeals preferred before the High Court against the award of the MACT must be considered afresh on all the points. For that purpose, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the appeals back to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
6. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
1. Leave granted
2. The appellant is the State of Punjab. The motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) passed an award in favour of some claimants in respect of an accident involving a vehicle owned by the appellants. A sum of Rs. 3.36 lakhs had been awarded by the tribunal. When the appeal was filed before the High Court the same was disposed of by the impugned judgment. On going through the impugned judgment we found that the High Court took it for granted that evidence of one Rajinder Kumar being an independent witness is a reliable evidence. But we are told by the learned counsel for the appellant-state that the said premise was absolutely wrong since Rajinder Kumar was not even examined as a witness in this case.
3. We, thereupon, issued notice to the respondents. Today, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants admitted that the facts stated by the learned counsel regarding non-examination of Rajinder Kumar is true. This is borne out by the recitals made in the award of the tribunal itself.
4. It appears that the High Court has only seen the FIR statement of Rajinder Kumar but the premise that Rajinder Kumar is an independent witness and his evidence worthy of acceptance was made without any basis.
5. We, feel that the appeals preferred before the High Court against the award of the MACT must be considered afresh on all the points. For that purpose, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the appeals back to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
6. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
