Lala Ram v. Rajkumar

: Mr. S. R. Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 22/04/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 09.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur and learned MACT Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Case No.835/2007.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant filed two claim petitions i.e. Claim Petition No.710/2006 titled as "Lala Ram Vs. Rajkumar" in respect of the pregnant wife of the appellant, and Claim Petition No.835/2007, filed in respect of the untimely death of a child in the womb. Claim Petition bearing No.710/2006, pertaining to wife Smt. Lali @ Ghisi Devi came to be settled by way of compromise and the said claim petition was decided vide order dated 03.08.2007 and an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- has been awarded to the appellant. The present [2025:RJ-JP:17024] (2 of 4) [CMA-5582/2011] claim petition relates to the untimely death of the child in womb. In the present claim petition, appellant has asked for compensation on account of death of the child in womb.

3. The claim petition filed by the claimant has been opposed by the Insurance Company while filing a detail response/reply. In its preliminary objections, the Insurance Company contended that since the appellant has already claimed compensation in the matter of claim petition No.710/2006 (835/2007) by claiming the death of his pregnant wife, therefore, present claim for child in womb is implicitly included in the same, thus, the present claim petition is not legally sustainable.

4. The claimant examined himself and produced as many as 16 documents. On the contrary, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company did not examine any witness or produce any documentary evidence.

5. The learned MACT Court, after hearing the arguments of respective parties, has dismissed the claim petition, observing that the Claimant-Lala Ram has already taken the compensation on behalf of this unborn child in the claim petition 710/2006 (835/2007), while seeking claim of the pregnant wife. It has come to the conclusion that the present claim is barred by the principle of res-judicata.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned MACT Court erred in passing the impugned order and dismissing the claim petition being barred by res-judicata. While not considering the fact, that both the claims are based upon different cause of action, one relating to the wife Smt. Lali @ Ghisi Devi and the second one is related to the unborn child (child in the [2025:RJ-JP:17024] (3 of 4) [CMA-5582/2011] womb). He further contended that despite raising preliminary objection by the Insurance Company, the respondent-Insurance Company did not produce any documentary evidence, and the principle of res-judicata is invoked without placing the relevant pleadings on record. The order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity and patent illegality. Therefore, same should be set aside by this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned order and contended that in view of the preliminary objections raised, the present claim petition has been rightly dismissed by the learned MACT being barred by the principle of res-judicata or estoppel.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. Learned MACT has dismissed the claim petition on the ground of being barred by the principle of res-judicata.

10. In the present case, the claimant has examined himself and produced as many as 16 documents to substantiate the averments of the claim petition. On the contrary, the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove the plea of res-judicata by producing any documentary proof or the pleadings of the previous claim petition No.710/2006 (835/2007).

11. That in order to consider the plea of res-judicata, the Court is required to consider the earlier pleadings of the parties and the previous judgment passed between the parties.

12. A bare perusal of the record of the case reveals that neither pleadings of previous claim petition were placed on record nor a [2025:RJ-JP:17024] (4 of 4) [CMA-5582/2011] copy of the judgment qua previous claim petition No.710/2006 (835/2007) was exhibited on record.

13. It is trite law that a plea of res-judicata cannot be adjudicated in the absence of the pleadings of the previous case or the final judgment arrived at in the previous proceeding. Thus, the learned trial court has committed a serious illegality in dismissing the claim.

14. That, the practice and procedure followed by the learned MACT Court appears to be perverse. Suffice is to say that if documents are not exhibited, no court can take cognizance thereof. In the present case the claim petition has been dismissed without considering the merits of the matter, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that matter is required to be remitted back to the learned Trial Court to decide the case afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence and produce documents if so desire.

15. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. To avoid further delay in the matter, let the parties are directed to remain present before the learned MACT on

04.07.2025. Record of the claim petition be sent back. While taking into note that present dispute pertains to year 2007, the learned MACT Court is directed to dispose of the matter preferably within one year from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Seema/49 (MANEESH SHARMA),J