Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravesh Kumar and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018FAFO/1174/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal by an insurance company challenging the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal for a motor accident. The court rejected the argument that the appellant ought to have impleaded the driver under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal was dismissed on the issue of quantum.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed. The remaining amount to be deposited before the Tribunal within 12 weeks.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pravesh Kumar and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 24

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1174 of 2009 Appellant :- National Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Pravesh Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- R.P.S. Chauhan,S.K.Tiwari,Vijay Kumar Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

This matter has been listed before the under signed by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

¶5

This appeal has been admitted on a very limited ground. The appellant is in Insurance Company who has felt aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries which the respondent-claimant sustained by way of vehicular accident. The claimant preferred motor accident petition 37 of 2007 before the Tribunal.

¶6

The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,994/- along with interest at the rate of 7%. The counsel for the claimants states that there is no counter claim and he is satisfied with the award which has been passed in his favour though the rate of interest granted, should have been 9%.

¶7

The vehicle have insured with the Insurance Company is not in dispute. Accident having taken place is also not in dispute and, therefore, the contention that the driver of Maruti Van ought to have been impleaded as party in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is no longer res integra, hence, the said ground of Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant is rejected.

¶8

In view of the settled position, the driver's presence is not a sine qua non for awarding compensation, hence, the first submission of Sri Manohar is rejected.

¶9

It is submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after a considerable delay and charge sheet was not brought on record to show that the driver of the Maruti Van was negligent. He has even disputed to be informant of the said vehicle.

¶10

While going through the records, which is placed before this Court the evidential value of such a statement being raised before the Tribunal has been negatived to the Tribunal by holding that the insurance company has not produced any cogent evidence to show that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident.

¶11

In view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed on the question of quantum. The quantum award cannot be said to be unjust or such or so high that it requires to be interfered with.

¶12

The appeal stands dismissed .

¶13

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. The remaining amount be deposited within 12 weeks from today before the Tribunal, if yet not deposited.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.10.2018 Praveen

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravesh Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravesh Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Amar Singh and Others

State of U.P. Vs Mahendra Singh and Another

State of U.P. Vs Anil Kumar Singhal .

Dinesh Kumar Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

The State of U.P. Vs A.D.J.

Smt. Parvati Devi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another