IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No 5139 of 2001 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Versus LEGAL HERIS & REPR. OF DECD VIJYABEN CHINABHAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SHALIN N MEHTA for Appellant MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Respondents No. 1/1-1/4 DELETED for Respondent No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI Date of decision: 14/02/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4-original claimants. Respondent no.2 is deleted and respondent no.3 is absent though served. 2. On a joint request of learned counsel this appeal is taken up for hearing today. 3. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar, in Claim Case No.213/99 under section 163-A of the said Act. 4. It is pertinent to note that the said award has been passed at Exh.14 in the main claim petition viz. Claim Case No.213/99. When the impugned award under section 163-A was declared, the main claim petition under section 166 of the Act was pending. However, it is now stated before us by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1/1 to 1/4 (original claimants) that thereafter the main claim petition under section 166 has been withdrawn. It, therefore, follows that the impugned award under section 163-A is the only award against the appellant Insurance Company, and that the same can be treated as the only award, and final, as against the appellant Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in law in treating the said claim petition under section 163-A as a claim of an interim nature, and has dealt with it in a manner similar to a claim under section 140 of the said Act. It was contended that on account of this approach on the part of the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company had no opportunity of leading appropriate evidence and/or meeting the contentions of the claimants in these proceedings under section 163-A of the said Act. 6. It would therefore appear that the interest of justice requires that the Tribunal should apply its mind to the facts of the case as brought on record by appropriate evidence by both the sides. It is also appropriate that the Tribunal should take into consideration such evidence in the light of the claims and contentions raised before it by the contesting parties. It is therefore necessary that each side should have an opportunity of presenting its case before the Tribunal supported by appropriate evidence on record. 7. In the premises aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award, which as aforesaid is based on a decision which is summary in nature, is required to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so held and directed. 8. On the facts of the case, we are informed that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants has been deposited before the Tribunal by the appellant Insurance Company in order to comply with the ad interim orders passed in Civil Application No.12767/2001. Looking to the ad interim order, it is stated therein that orders as to investment/disbursement shall be passed later on. Under the circumstances it would appear that the amount is still lying as deposit with the Tribunal. This amount may be withdrawn by the appellant Insurance Company. 9. In the premises aforesaid and on the facts of the case, we hold by consensus between the learned counsel for the parties that it shall be open to the original claimants as also to other opponents in the claim petition to adduce such evidence in support of their claims and contentions as they may desire. The Tribunal shall then decide the said claim petition under section 163-A afresh in the light of the evidence on record and in the light of the claims and contentions raised by the respective parties. 10. This appeal is, therefore, allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Decree accordingly. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the remand directed by the present judgement, it would be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the claim petition and to dispose of the same as early as possible in consonance with the date of its filing and the workload before the Tribunal. ****** *ar*