Dismissed

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar Jain

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018FAFO/892/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal by the accused in a motor vehicle accident case against the Tribunal's award of compensation. The appellant alleged false implication. The court found the Tribunal's categorical finding of fact undisputed by the injured and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; statutory deposit to be remitted to Tribunal for adjustment towards the award.

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs Manoj Kumar Jain — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 892 of 2017 Appellant :- Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jain Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Jain Counsel for Appellant :- Ranjit Saxena

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶5

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Agra in M.A.C.P. No. 111 of 2016, whereby compensation amount to the tune of Rs.25,500/- has been awarded in favour the claimant-respondent along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶6

The facts of the case are that on 11.10.2015 at 7:30 pm the claimant-Manoj Kumar Jain along with his wife were going and when they reached near Sales Tax Office in front of Jaipur House Shahganj, a santro car bearing Registration No. UP-80 AC-8804, which was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently, hit them from front side, which resulted into serious injuries to them. Thereafter, both the injured were got admitted in the Sinarji Hospital with the help of people gathered on the spot.

¶7

The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the involvement of his santro car bearing Registration No. UP 80 AC/8804 in the accident in question is false one and because of the dispute between two families, the appellant has been implicated in this case and his car has been shown to be involved in the accident. In a nutshell, the argument is that it is all for malafide reason.

¶8

From perusal of the award of the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has duly considered the cross-examination of the injured and has come to record a categorical finding of the fact that in the cross-examination, nothing has come out from the injured so as to doubt the allegations made in the claim petition.

¶9

The Tribunal has also recorded that had it been a case of mutual rivalry then the appellant, who was the defendant, could have in all probability lodged the first information report against the injured but no evidence to this effect has been led and instead appellant got himself bailed out after he was arrested. Further, I

¶10

find no evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was picked up from the house of the appellant. No GD entry to that effect was produced.

¶11

The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

The statutory amount Rs.25,000/- already deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the deposit to be made under the award.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2018 Atmesh

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar Jain

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

Gulam Ahmad Vs Smt. Bhondi and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ramshree and Another

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Brij Mohan and 6 Others

world window impex india private limited Vs shakeel ahmad and 7 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shamim Ahmad Kha and 7 Others

Ravi and 3 Ors. Vs Laxman and Another