Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/4396/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 4396 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10511 of 2008
=========================================================
G.S.R.T.C.
- Appellant(s)
Versus
VARSHABEN
WD/O. GIRISHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL & 5 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
AVANI S MEHTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PARESH M DARJI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3,
5,
None for Defendant(s) : 4,
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 05/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Ms. Avani S. Mehta appearing on behalf of appellant
? G.S.R.T.C. and learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji appearing on
behalf of respondents.
2. ADMIT.
3. Learned
advocate Mr. Darji waives service of notice of admission on behalf of
respondents.
4. In
the present appeal, the appellant ? Corporation has challenged the
award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gandhinagar in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2007 of 2004 (Old No.2145 of 1996)
dated 22nd June 2006.
5. The
Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,27,000/- with 6% interest being a
compensation.
6. Learned
advocate Ms. Mehta raised contention that this matter is not being
settled in Lok Adalat and advocate of the Corporation is not agreed
in giving consent to settle the matter in Lok Adalat. She submitted
that Corporation has received the letter from learned advocate Mr.
G.C. Mazmudar who had appeared on behalf of Corporation dated 30th
October 2006, where, in terms, it is mentioned that this matter has
been decided by the Claims Tribunal in his own way without obtaining
consent from the advocate of the Corporation. There was no discussion
and advocate was not remained present and even it was not informed by
the Claims Tribunal to the advocate and decided the matter as if that
Corporation is ready and willing to settle the matter in Lok Adalat.
7. Learned
advocate Mr. Darji submitted that a detailed reasonings are given by
the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. Even otherwise also, the amount
which has been awarded by the Tribunal comes to the same figure.
However, he submitted that when other side is objecting that there
was no consent, then, this matter may go back with specific
directions that Tribunal may decide this matter within some
reasonable time after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
respective parties.
8. After
considering the submissions made by learned advocates appearing on
behalf of respective parties and considering the reasonings given by
Claims Tribunal, where, specifically stated in last two lines of Para
6 that matter is decided before the Lok Adalat as per consent given
by the parties which was hand written. Probably, this has been
objected by learned advocate Ms. Mehta. Therefore, just to clear the
doubt as to whether matter has been settled in fact before the Lok
Adalat or not.
9. Therefore,
the award in question passed by Claims Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.2007 of 2004 (Old No.2145 of 1996) dated
22nd June 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside with a
direction to concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the
aforesaid claim petition within a period of three months from the
date of receiving the copy of this order after giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and respective
parties are entitled to produce the relevant records before the
Claims Tribunal and also entitled to lead oral evidence if any before
the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has to decide the claim
petition on merits in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly,
First Appeal is allowed with aforesaid direction. No order as to
costs.
11. As
the First Appeal is allowed to the above extent, Civil Application
does not survive. Accordingly, Civil Application is disposed of.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top