Dismissed

managing director (j.n.n.u.r.m.) kanpur v. godhan lal and 2 others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2018FAFO/675/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal challenged an award of Rs. 6,74,800/- for the death of Mithlesh caused by negligent driving of a bus. Finding no merit as the appellant failed to discredit the eye-witness evidence, the appeal was disposed of under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; deposited amount remitted to court below.

managing director (j.n.n.u.r.m.) kanpur Vs godhan… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 675 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Managing Director (J.N.N.U.R.M.) Kanpur Respondent :- Godhan Lal And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri M.M. Sahai, Advocate for appellant and Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate, for claimants-respondents.

¶6

This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1988”) has arisen from judgment and award dated 15.11.2017 passed by Sri Anirudh Kumar Tiwari, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar awarding compensation of Rs. 6,74,800/- along with 7 per cent interest to claimant-respondents on account of death of Mithlesh on 18.02.2012 when tort feasor vehicle, i.e., Bus No. UP32/CZ 4725 being driven recklessly and negligently by the Driver dashed him and deceased died on spot.

¶7

Driver of vehicle was examined by appellant in evidence who admitted the accident though sought to explain that he was not driving vehicle negligently and accident occurred while he was trying to save another person. Eye-witness Sri Godhan Lal has given a detailed account of accident and in the cross examination, nothing could be extracted by defendants, including the appellant, to discredit the evidence of eye witness. Court below, therefore, has recorded finding of fact with regard to negligent driving of vehicle by Driver and adjudicated issue in this regard against appellant.

¶8

Learned counsels for appellant could not point out any error in the aforesaid findings recorded by Court below. In the circumstances, we find no merits in the appeal.

¶9

Dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.

¶10

Amount, already deposited at the time of filing this appeal, shall be remitted to Court below forthwith. Order Date :- 13.2.2018 PS

managing director (j.n.n.u.r.m.) kanpur v. godhan lal and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

managing director (j.n.n.u.r.m.) kanpur v. godhan lal 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

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohd. Zuber Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Agra Devp. Authority Vs M/S Tanmay Nirman P Ltd.