Allowed

Abbas Ahmad v. Ali Hasan

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2019FAFO/171/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Tribunal order exonerating an insurance company in a motor accident case, the court allowed the appeal. It held that liability was joint and several in a case of composite negligence and directed recovery of the amount with 7.5% interest from all respondents.

What did the court decide?

The order was set aside; the amount is recoverable from all respondents jointly and severally at 7.5% interest.

Abbas Ahmad Vs Ali Hasan — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 171 of 1991 Appellant :- Abbas Ahmad Respondent :- Ali Hasan Counsel for Appellant :- A.L. Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- S. Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

This appeal, at the behest of appellant has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1990 passed by IInd Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.59 of 1983.

¶5

The appellants have felt aggrieved as though their claim petition was allowed. It was directed that respondent no. 1 herein will be the only person liable to indemnify the appellant exonerating insurance company.

¶6

The brief facts as culled out from the judgment of the Tribunal are that the accident occurred on 27.3.1979. The claimants preferred claim petition No.59 of 1983. which was accepted by the Tribunal holding the respondent no. 1 to be negligent and directed a sum of Rs.56,000/- with 12% rate of interest. The appellant contents that the amount should ordered to be paid by all as it was not proved that there was any in far action of policy condition. It is an admitted position of fact not brought on dispute that truck first dashed with the motorcycle from behind and injured the appellant herein. The motorcyclist was made party and when the charge sheet was laid, truck and its insurance company was arrayed as party - respondent.

¶7

The accident was accepted by the respondent no. 1 and 2. The vehicle was insured was not denied. Respondent no. 2 and 3 could not have been exonerated as it was a case of composite negligent.

¶8

The injured was a minor and, therefore, his deposition was not believed by the Tribunal. Just because the number of the truck was not given in the FIR but charge sheet was filed against the truck which proved the involvement of the truck. The owner of the truck accepted his involvement. Once the Tribunal held the driver of the truck to be negligent it should have not exonerate the insurance company.

¶9

In that view of the matter the appeal is allowed. The interest will be at 7.5%. The amount if yet not deposit be

¶10

recovered from all the respondents jointly and severally.

¶11

It goes without saying that after elevation of Sri S.Kumar who was appearing for New India Insurance Company Limited, they have not engaged any Advocate for these many years and the matter is, therefore, heard ex-parte.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.9.2019/Mukesh

Abbas Ahmad v. Ali Hasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas Ahmad v. Ali Hasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallu Prasad and Another Vs Raj Kumar Sahu and Others

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

National Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Puspa Devi and Others

Mewa Lal Vs Vishwanath and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt. Raj Kumari and Ors.

New India Assurance Company Vs Ranjeet Singh and 6 Others