1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 321/2006 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 229/2006 (Hari Singh Versus Kalua Ram & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 311/2006 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 226/2006 (Hari Singh Versus Smt. Prem & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3557/2005 (Smt. Prem & Others Versus Hari Singh & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3559/2005 (Smt. Kamlesh & Others Versus Hari Singh & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3561/2005 (Smt. Rama & Another Versus Hari Singh & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 316/2006 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 228/2006 (Hari Singh Versus Smt. Rama & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 366/2006 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 250/2006 (Hari Singh Versus Smt. Kamlesh & Others) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 512/2006 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 370/2006 (Hari Singh Versus Smt. Vimlesh & Others) Date of Judgment :: 5th October, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Anshul Sharma ) counsel for the Mr. Prateek Sharma) non claimants Mr. Virendra Agrawal, counsel for the claimants Mr. Ram Singh Bhati) counsel for the National Mr. R.P. Vijay ) Insurance Co. Mr. Dinesh Kala ) Mr. T.P.Sharma ) Mr. S.R. Joshi ) BY THE COURT: 2 Since all the aforesaid eight appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 30th September, 2005 passed by the learned Tribunal, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants in their respective appeals submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the grounds which he has raised by way of the aforesaid appeals. The finding of the learned Tribunal on issue nos. 2 and 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue nos. 2 and 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 judgment rendered in the case of Sohan Lal Passi Versus P. Sesh Reddy & Others reported in 1996 SCC (5) 21. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite. 3 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, all the aforesaid eight appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 30.9.2005 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 in the light of the grounds taken by learned counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid appeals and the aforesaid judgment, if applicable, 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 18.2.2013. However, it is made clear that if any amount has been received by the claimants 4 under the impugned award, the said amount shall not be recovered from them. Consequent upon the disposal of appeals, the stay applications, filed herewith, do not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. DK All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA