Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kumari Hemlata Alias Hema vs Hanif And Ors on 1 April, 2022
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1149/2018
Reliance Gen Ins. Co.
Vs.
Smt. Dharmbai
Connected with
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1153/2018
1. Smt Dharmbai 2 Dharmo W/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Age
49 year
2. Virendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Age 31 year
3. Pushpendra Pal Singh S/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Age 26
year
4. Kumari Asha D/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Age 26 year
5. Kumari Hemlata D/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Age 24 year
6. Smt Shanti W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, Age 70 year
All appellants are R/o Village Jatnagla, Tehsil Hindon City
Distt. Karoli. Rajashan
----Appellants
Versus
1. Hanif S/o Hafij, R/o Dholikhar, Karoli (Driver)
2. Ballu Kha S/o Hafij Kha, R/o Dholikhar Karoli. (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Regional
Manager, At Regional Office At Mekar Tower, Nityanand
Marg Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1156/2018
Kumari Hemlata @ Hema D/o Late Shri Hari Singh, Age 24 year,
R/o Village Jatnagla, Tehsil Hindon City Distt. Karoli.
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Hanif S/o Hafij, R/o Dholikhar, Karoli (Driver)
2. Ballu Kha S/o Hafij Kha, R/o Dholikhar, Karoli (Owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Regional
Manager, At Regional Office At Maker Tower, Nityanand
Marg, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar (Insurance Co.)
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 05:49:57 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-1149/2018]
For Appellant(s) / : Mr. Sunil Jain, Advocate
claimants
For Respondent(s) / : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Advocate
Insurance Company
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
01/04/2022
Matter has come up on an application filed under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC.
Before deciding the appeals on merits, application
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is required to be decided first.
So far as the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is
concerned, the same has been filed with a prayer to take on
record the documents annexed with the application.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants (for short
'the claimants') submits that the claimants filed S.B. Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1153/2018 and 1156/2018 against the
judgment and award dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, (Additional District and
Sessions Judge No. 1 Hindaun City) (for short 'the Tribunal')
whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was partly allowed
and Rs. 28,2,0977/- were awarded in their favour. He further
submits that claim petition in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.1153/2018 was filed by the claimants due to death of Hari
Singh, who was a Government servant in medical department and
working on the post of Multi-purpose worker and his monthly
salary was Rs.23,294/- per month. The claimants filed S.B. Civil
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 05:49:57 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-1149/2018]
Writ Petition No. 18210/2016 before this Court for granting
selection scale to deceased Govt. servant Hari Singh, which was
allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.04.2017. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.12.2017, the pay
scale of 4000-6000 was granted to the petitoner(s) with effect
from 11.02.1991 per month. Subsequently, an order dated
31.01.2019 came to be passed by the Block Chief Medical and
Health Officer, Hindaun City, District Karauli from which it is
proved that salary of deceased Hari Singh for the month of May,
2013 was Rs. 26524/-. It is submitted that the aforesaid
additional evidence could not be produced before the Tribunal as
the same has come into existence subsequent to the judgment
and award of the Tribunal. Thus, the application deserves to be
allowed and aforesaid documents annexed with the said
application are required to be taken on record as additional
evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
has opposed the application.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the documents which are annexed with the application have come into existence after the judgment of the Tribunal and the same are relevant and material evidence for disposal of this appeal. Needless to say that aforesaid evidence was not within the knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence be produced by the claimants at the time when the impugned judgment and award was passed. Therefore, the documents annexed with the application deserve to be taken on record as additional evidence.
The application is, therefore, allowed and the
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 05:49:57 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-1149/2018]
documents annexed with the application are taken on record as additional evidence. Consequently for this purpose, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal under Order 41 Rule 28 CPC for recording evidence of the claimants and the Insurance Company is also permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal thereof and send the same to this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The appeal be listed as soon as the evidence recorded by the Tribunal in compliance of this order is received.
Office is directed to send back the record to the Tribunal along with the documents which are taken on record by this order.
Both the parties are directed to remain present in the Tribunal on 27.05.2022.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1149/2018 Since the record has already been ordered to be sent to the Tribunal, no order is required to be passed on the application for sending the record back to the Tribunal. Hence, the same stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J MR/42 to 44 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 05:49:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)