IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. **
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2717/2006
(Babulal and ors. Vs. Chheetar and ors.)
Date of Judgment : 09-09-2009
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH
Mr.RS Sharma,for the appellants.
Mr.N.S.Rathore and Mr.Anirudh Singh for Mr.V.Agrawal, for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, this appeal is being heard and finally disposed of at admission stage.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant challenging the impugned Judgment & award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur city, Jaipur vide judgment dated 26.4.2006 whereby claim petition of the appellant was dismissed on the basis of finding on issue nos.2 and 3 whereby it was held that claimant could not prove that respondent no.4 was registered owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of judgment by the learned Tribunal, he has filed a certificate issued by the DTO, Ajmer in support of the fact that registered owner of the offending vehicle was respondent no.4 but that was not taken on record and hence the claim was dismissed though the issue of quantum of compensation was decided in his favour. It is also submitted that document issued by DTO regarding Registration certificate is required to be taken on record and matter deserves to be remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after giving opportunity of hearing to him as well as to the opposite party. It is also submitted that it was lapse on the part of appellant-claimant that he did not file the requisite certificate in time before the Tribunal and hence period for which claim remained dismissed should be excluded in computing the interest in case any amount is found due against the respondents.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that claim was rightly dismissed for want of registration certificate in favour of respondent no.4 and thus findings call for no interference.
6. On hearing rival contentions,and going through the award as also record of the case,it is revealed that issues were decided against the appellant on the basis that appellant could not prove that the respondent no.4-Smt.Kamla Devi was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. However, it is further revealed that certificate regarding ownership of the vehicle was filed at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant but it could not be proved at that stage. Now the learned counsel for the appellant has moved an application under O.41 R.27 CPC for taking the certificate on record and praying for remanding the case for fresh decision as mentioned herein above.
7. In view of the fact that the counsel for the appellant has submitted the certificate issued by DTO which appears to be genuine and, as such, application filed under O.41 R.27 CPC is allowed and certificate filed is ordered to be taken on record.
8. In view of the above submissions, the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh decision on all the issues so that both the parties may adduce their evidence in the matter.
9. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is allowed. The impugned Judgment & award dated 26.4.2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to decide all the issues afresh after giving opportunity of hearing as well as to adduce evidence, if any, to both the parties. All the parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 29.10.2009. It is further ordered that in case any amount is awarded to the appellant, that shall exclude the period for which claim petition remained dismissed for the purpose of computing interest. Record be sent forthwith. The document taken on record shall also be sent along with record.
(GUMAN SINGH),J.
Sandeep/-
item no.59