Partly allowed

Natioanl Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rampal Singh and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2018FAFO/625/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, in a first appeal, held that the Tribunal's finding was bad in law as it ignored contradictions between the charge-sheet and the first written statement regarding the driver's identity. The appeal was partly allowed, allowing the insurer to recover the amount deposited.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount deposited from the owner.

Natioanl Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rampal Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 625 of 1999 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Rampal Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Srivastava, Vipin Chandra Dixit

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Though about eighteen years have elapsed, notice have already been served, none has appeared for the respondent-owner and the claimant hence, this Court is obliged to take this matter for final disposal.

¶5

The Insurance Company has assailed the judgment of the Tribunal which awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest for the death of Rinupal whose heirs filed the claim petition being M.A.C. No.85 of 1996.

¶6

Facts are not necessary as the appeal is to be decided on question of law.

¶7

The learned counsel for the appellant pressed into service the finding of fact in issue No.7. I am convinced that the said finding is bad in the eye of law for the reasons; first, the charge-sheet was laid against Rajendra and second, in the first written statement filed before the Tribunal it was never stated on oath by the owner that the driver of the offending vehicle was one Gopichand. Only after it was found that Rajendra did not have valid driving license, Gopichand has sought to be brought on the scene. Even in the F.I.R. or the statement of the driver he has not been named. Neither Rajendra nor Gopichand has been examined by the owner. The fact that Rajendra gave the vehicle to Gopichand does not appear to be factually correct from the written statement filed at the first instance. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed on Shakandia Insurance Company Vs. Kakila Ben Chandra Vadan and Others cannot be applied against the Insurance Company.

¶8

In that view of the matter it goes without saying that the driver Rajendra was the person who was driving the vehicle and in issue No.6 it is brought

¶9

out that Rajendra did not have valid driving license.

¶10

In that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds. The Insurance Company would have right to recover the from the owner the amount deposited in lieu of the orders passed by this Court and in pursuance of the decree passed by the Tribunal.

¶11

Appeal partly allowed. No other grounds are pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.1.2018 DKS

Natioanl Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rampal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natioanl Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rampal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Others Vs Vimla Devi and Others

Jal Sansthan Jhansi Division and Another Vs Bashir Ahmadl and Others

Chhotey Singh Vs Smt. Ramshiya and 3 Others

Ram Nath Patel Vs U.P.S.R.T.C.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Mukhtar Ahmad

Durgawati and Others Vs Kapil Deo Prasad Jaiswal and Ors.