Partly allowed

Kallu Prasad and Another v. Raj Kumar Sahu and Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2019FAFO/1338/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order but granted partial relief. The court held that a clerical error in the FIR truck number did not justify dismissing the claim. However, the court remanded the issue of compensation quantum to be enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000/- as per precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000/- and interest at 7.5% is directed to be deposited by the Insurance company.

Kallu Prasad and Another Vs Raj Kumar Sahu and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.1338 of 2000

¶3

Appellant :- Kallu Prasad And Another Respondent :- Raj Kumar Sahu And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- P.K.Rao,V.B.Rao,V.C.Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 12.7.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 61/70 of 1998, wherein the claim petition of the appellants has been dismissed.

¶7

The F.I.R. cannot be the sole basis of rejection of a claim petition. There was no protest filed by the appellants herein against the police report.

¶8

It is submitted by Sri Dixit that in the F.I.R. the number of truck was wrongly mentioned as Truck No.0835. The F.I.R. was later on mentioned to be the one which is alleged to have caused the accident. The driver, on receiving the summon, appeared and accepted his vehicle's involvement. Just because the F.I.R. kept of a different vehicle, can the appellants be non-suited. The deceased was 5 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has considered the quantum but refused to pass a decree in favour of the present appellant. Just because there is a wrong mention of number of the truck in the F.I.R. will not obviate the right of a third party. The accident took place on 25.3.1998 and on the same day, the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶9

¶10

In the claim petition, the truck involved in the accident was numbered as UP-90-0855 whereas there is an error in lodgement of the F.I.R. There seems to be some typographical error in the F.I.R. as 0855 is the number of the vehicle involved in the accident whereas in the F.I.R. it was mentioned 0835. The F.I.R., it has been held by the Apex Court, is not a foolproof version but is only a prima facie version of criminal prosecution to be set into motion. The lodger of the F.I.R. even deposed before the Tribunal that he had tried to get the number corrected before filing of claim petition which was rejected, just because there was no mention of the driver and owner in the F.I.R., can it be said that the matter has to be dismissed, the answer is “No”.

¶11

The Tribunal, while dictating the judgment, has decided issue no.2 and has held that as the age of the deceased was 5 years, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was assessed. Hence, as the accident is of the year 1998, the deceased was 5 years of age, the amount is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- as per the judgment of the Apex Court for the year 1998 and as followed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 2287 of 2004, Kamlesh Verma Vs. Kishan Mohan Mishra and others.

¶12

The appeal is partly allowed. The amount calculated herein above will carry 7.5% rate of interest be deposited by the Insurance company within 12 weeks from today as the issues before the Tribunal were held in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal had even decided what the compensation could have been paid and there was no breach of policy conditions.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.9.2019 Irshad

Kallu Prasad and Another v. Raj Kumar Sahu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu Prasad and Another v. Raj Kumar Sahu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanath Vs Smt. Kamla Devi

Bhupendra Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Kamal Kumari and Others

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.and Others

U.P.S.E.Board Vs M/S Sai Steel Industries

National Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Puspa Devi and Others

Shanti Devi Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others