Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar Dixit S/O Late Sh. Jyoti ... vs Sh. Sushil Kumar R/O H.No.1028 Sector 37 on 10 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.825 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
FAO No.825 of 2007
Date of decision: July 10, 2012
Rakesh Kumar Dixit s/o late Sh. Jyoti Parkash Dixit r/o 3642,
Sector 23-D, Chandigarh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Sushil Kumar r/o H.No.1028 Sector 37, Chandigarh and
another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Arora , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate
for the Insurance Company.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. In the appeal for reassessment of damages, there is an application for reception of additional evidence. It relates to a surgery alleged to have been performed on the appellant for the acceleration of an injury that has resulted in the course of time.
2. The document filed is challenged by the Insurance Company. If the document is genuine it would require a further examination of whether there has been any further deterioration in the condition that allows for fresh assessment of disability. I am of the view that the matter could be properly dealt with only by affording to the parties an opportunity to produce further evidence on the events which have taken place subsequent to the FAO No.825 of 2007 2 filing of the appeal. The award passed already would require a re- consideration in the light of the additional evidence that is allowed to be placed and the matter is remitted for the said purpose.
3. The award is set aside and the case is remitted to the MACT, Chandigarh for fresh consideration in the light of evidence offered to be produced by the appellant. The reconsideration shall not result in reduction of the award already passed since there has been no appeal by the Insurance Company before this Court.
4. Needless to state that the Insurance Company shall be entitled to take all additional pleas if there is ever a claim for an enhancement of the claim already made in the original petition. However, the claim in the original petition is retained and the attempt is only to obtain a revision of the assessment already made, the additional pleadings may relate only to the documentary evidence which is placed by the appellant. The parties are at liberty to bring appropriate oral evidence in support of the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellant here and for any additional disability.
5. With these observations, the appeal is allowed and remanded as above.
6. Parties shall appear before the MACT, Chandigarh on 6.8.2012.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 10, 2012 archana