Dismissed

Amar Singh v. Rajesh Kumari and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018FAFOD/333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the first appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,94,000 and joint and several liability against the appellant. Finding no merit in the contention that the appellant was not involved, the court upheld the Tribunal's findings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal is free to proceed with recovery against the persons directed to compensate.

Amar Singh Vs Rajesh Kumari and 5 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 333 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Amar Singh Respondent :- Rajesh Kumari And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Rajpal

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018 Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

In view of the office report dated 23rd of July, 2018, service of notice upon respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is deemed sufficient.

¶7

The cause shown for delay is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed.

¶8

Order Date :- 24.7.2018

¶9

Sazia

¶10

Court No. - 26

¶11

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 333 of 2018

¶12

Appellant :- Amar Singh Respondent :- Rajesh Kumari And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Rajpal

¶13

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶14

This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 29th of August, 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Farrukhabad allowing the Claim Petition No. 174 of 2009 (Rajesh Kumar and others vs Amar Singh and others) for a compensation of Rs. 3,94,000/- (rupees three lac ninety four thousand) along with simple rate of interest of 7%.

¶15

The appellant is aggrieved against the award to the extent that he has been held liable along with the owner of the vehicle jointly and severally for the purposes of payment of compensation and recovery thereof.

¶16

The claimants are dependants of one Veer Bhan, who died in a road accident on 21st of February, 2009 caused by tractor bearing No. UP 82/ 5529.

¶17

The Tribunal on consideration of various issues has held that an accident had taken place and that the deceased suffered fatal injuries on account of accident caused by the Tractor, which was being driven quite negligently and rashly, resulting in the fatal injuries to the deceased, who was taken to the hospital and there she succumbed to her injuries.

¶18

On the question of liability, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the appellant herein was driving the Tractor and there is sufficient evidence against him. The Tribunal has also recorded the fact that first information report was lodged and in which the appellant was named, and thereafter during the police investigation, he had been found to be involved in the accident as he was himself driving the vehicle. The charge sheet has also been submitted. Since, no driving licence was

¶19

produced by the appellant before the Tribunal, driving the vehicle without licence is illegal and is impermissible in law under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire accident is disputed as the appellant was not involved at all. The appellant admitted that he does not have any driving licence, but at the same time, he also claims that he did not know driving. The Tribunal has disbelieved this statement on the basis of ocular evidence led and I also find myself in total agreement with findings returned by the Tribunal as from the discussion it absolutely transpires to be correct that the appellant herein was driving the tortfeasor vehicle at the time of accident.

¶21

So far the argument advanced by the appellant that driver was falsely named in the first information report lodged at the instance of Satyabhan (pillion rider with the deceased on Motorcycle) is concerned, it also does not appeal to reason as the driver himself had stated before the Tribunal that he had no enmity with either Satyabhan or the claimants.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any cogent or convincing material to have escaped the scanning eyes of the Tribunal while recording a finding of fact in respect of the liability of the appellant for driving a tractor without Driving Licence. Needless to add, the tractor was also not insured.

¶23

No other ground is pressed to challenge the award. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award.

¶24

The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

The Tribunal is free to proceed with the recovery against the persons, who have been directed to compensate as per the award to the claimants.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 Sazia

Amar Singh v. Rajesh Kumari and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. Rajesh Kumari and 5 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

Smt.Neelima Prajapati and Others Vs Desh Raj and Another

Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dhanveer Singh and Another

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Beena and 4 Others

Iliyas Vs Smt. Suman Saini and 5 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Mithlesh Alias Kamlesh and Others

Smt. Shobha Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Others