Allowed

Virendra Singh Rana v. Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance Co. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018FAFO/3239/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal set aside its order rejecting the appellant's claim petition. The court held that the Tribunal erred in relying solely on a frustrated statement made during cross-examination, ignoring corroborative evidence of the accident and medical treatment. The matter is remitted to pass a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The award rejecting the claim petition is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order within three months.

Virendra Singh Rana Vs Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance… — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3239 of 2017

¶3

Appellant :- Virendra Singh Rana Respondent :- Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance Co. & 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Raj Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Clams Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Agra dated 14.7.2014 in M.A.C.P. No. 191 of 2014. By that award, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant with respect to an accident that had occurred on 29.4.2013.

¶7

According to the appellant, he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP80-AP-6084 when his motorcycle was hit by the truck bearing registration no. RJ05-GA-4645. In that accident, another person riding another motorcycle bearing registration no. UP80-BS-4280 namely one Ravi Kumar was also similarly hit and he died as a result of the injury suffered by him.

¶8

The appellant claims to have suffered some injury for which he had received treatment. Therefore, he filed a claim petition for compensation for the injury suffered in that motor accident.

¶9

Perusal of the record reveals that the various documentary evidence were filed by the appellant to establish the injury suffered by him. He also lead oral evidence in support of his claim petition.

¶10

The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that the appellant had himself admitted the fact that he had made false statement in those proceedings.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the oral evidence of the appellant has to be read in entirety. The appellant had clearly proven the fact of the accident and the injury suffered by him as a result of that accident. During his cross-examination, the various suggestions were thrown at the appellant by the counsel for the insurer-respondents to doubt the correctness of his statement. The appellant had promptly refuted each such suggestion. However, at the fag end of the cross-examination statement, it does appear to have been recorded that the appellant made false statement, which is not a correct reflection of the statement of the claimant.

¶12

From a reading of the entire statement, it is clear that the appellant did not admit falsity of his statement or testimony. Perusal of that statement reveals that during his cross-examination the appellant had specifically denied the following facts:-

¶13

(i) He denied the suggestion that no accident had taken place.

¶14

(ii) He denied that the documents submitted by him in support of the claim petition, were false.

¶15

(iii) He denied the suggestion that no money had been spent on receiving treatment;

¶16

(iv) He admitted that he was a poor person but he further stated, still he suffered pain. This one statement reflects the state of mind of the claimant, reached as a result of excessive questioning. A poor man fighting for his rights may perhaps have not been able to take the brunt of crossexamination that he perceived as a personal insult or even an assault on his dignity. He therefore stated that merely because he was poor he suffered the injury nonetheless.

¶17

Thereafter, and in such state of mind, appears to have given vent to his frustration and hurt, when he stated that his statement was false. The Tribunal, instead of intervening at the appropriate stage has acted on that single statement and ignored the entire testimony of the claimant that otherwise establishes the claim made. The statement " our main ye jhuta bayan de raha hu' is not accompanied or followed by any other evidence as may render the testimony of the claimant to be false. It thus appears that in the first place, other than this single statement there is nothing to suggest that the appellant had any where admitted to the falsity of his claim. Second, made is one made out of the frustration at the repeated suggestions made that claim was false and upon a direct attack being made as to truthfulness of the claim made by the appellant owing to his poor financial and social status to which it appears the claimant greatly resented.

¶18

Merely because of one sentence, which is not supported by any other material or other piece of evidence and which does not appear to be correct in view of the other evidence that he had been led by the appellant in the shape of medical bills and treatment received and further in view of the fact that the factum of accident involving the offending truck stood established with reference to other motorcycle, it appears that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the entire claim, on a single statement recorded during the cross-examination of the appellant.

¶19

Consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Clams Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Agra dated 14.7.2014 in M.A.C.P. No. 191 of 2014 in so far as it has rejected the claim petition, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order, on merits in accordance with law.

¶20

The aforesaid exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

The present appeal is allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 2.11.2018 Mini

Virendra Singh Rana v. Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance Co. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh Rana v. Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance Co. and 2 Others

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

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India Thru. G.M.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India Thru. G.M.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India Thru. G.M.

Narvadeshwar Singh Vs State of Up through Secy. Basic Education Up at Lko. and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Deputy General Manger Canara Bank and Others

M/S Jai Mata Ji Enterprises and Transport Co. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax