Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2018FAFO/805/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal against an award of compensation for a motor accident. The court held that the Tribunal's finding of fact regarding the tortfeasor vehicle's involvement and driver's negligence was not perverse, precluding interference.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The statutory deposit is remitted to the court below for adjustment against the award.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Brijesh Kumar and Another — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 805 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saral Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

This appeal is directed against the award dated 19.12.2002 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bareilly has allowed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 65,000/- alongwith simple interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum

¶6

Briefly stating fact of the case is that while injured was going alongwith his brother Rakesh Kumar and Gopal from Bareilly Junction to Nakatia in a cycle rickshaw, a tortfeasor vehicle hit the rickshaw due to rash and negligent driving and resultantly the injured Rakesh Kumar and Gopal sustained injuries. While Rakesh Kumar died on account of antemortem injuries suffered in the accident, the petitioner sustained leg injury and underwent surgery. The Insurance Company however contested the claim petition denying the allegations and involvement of vehicle in quetion as well as rash and negligent driving.

¶7

The Tribunal framed inter alia issues with regard to the involvement of vehicle in question and also negligence in driving of vehicle. The Tribunal came to record categorical finding of fact that the vehicle in question was in fact tortfeasor vehicle and was involved in the accident which resulted in the fatal injury of one Rakesh Kumar and is appellant-respondent herein also suffered injuries in his leg. It was so recorded by the Tribunal that during the course of the investigation it was detected that the vehicle in question was involved, however, since driver was driving tortfeasor vehicle having valid driving licence and vehicle was duly insured, the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by the respondent. Except on the question of involvement of vehicle in question, no other argument has been led before this Court in appeal

¶8

and since finding of fact returned by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with for any perversity or misreading of evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the award.

¶9

The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

The statutory amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the court below for being adjusted against the award.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.10.2018 Sanjeev

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brijesh Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Julekha Vs Jogendra Pal Singh

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abhishek Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Balwant Singh (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Shanti Prakash (Deceased) and 6 Others

Keshav Nath Vs Mukti Narayan Chaturvedi

ramesh chand yadav Vs amita and 3 Ors.