Dismissed

Upendra Chauhan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2019FAFO/3199/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly dismissed the claim as the appellant failed to prove the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Consequently, no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act did not arise.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the impugned award dated 24.9.2015 is upheld.

Upendra Chauhan Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3199 of 2015

¶3

Appellant :- Upendra Chauhan Respondent :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

The present first appeal from order has been filed against impugned award dated 24.9.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Mau (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.2 of 2015 (Upendra Chauhan Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And another) by which the claim petition was dismissed.

¶6

The brief facts relating to the case are that appellant filed Claim Petition No.2 of 2015 under Section 140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the allegations that his 30 years old mother sustained injuries in the accident by Bolero vehicle on 7.11.2014 resulting in her death and Bolero vehicle was owned by Phuleshwar Prasad, opposite party no.2 and was insured by National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶7

The Tribunal after framing of issues on parties' pleadings and recording the evidence in its findings on issue no.1 held that claimant has failed to prove the accident in question due to rash and negligent driving on the part of offending Bolero in question and dismissed the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶8

Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for claimant-appellant, Sri Arun Prakash, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and perused the record.

¶9

The only point raised by appellant is that in its findings on issue no.1 the Tribunal has not disbelieved the occurrence of accident in question rather has only held that "claimant failed to prove accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle, so provisions of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act as well as principles of common law were applicable and according to which claimant is entitled to get compensation under no fault liability. In support of his contention he has paid reliance on the judgment in the case of Kaushnuma Begum Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2001 (2) SCC 9 , wherein the Apex Court in answer to a question that:-

¶10

"Even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, but accident happens while the vehicle was in use, should not the owner be made liable for damages to the person who suffered on account of such accident? This question depends upon how far the Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) can apply in motor accident cases. The said Rule is summarised by Blackburn, J, thus:

¶11

The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his

¶12

land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escape, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default, or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but, as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient."

¶13

He further submitted that no fault liability in Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the Rule of strict liability and the claimant may be awarded compensation as per structured formula mentioned in Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purposes of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned award and contended that contention raised by learned counsel for claimant-appellant is absolutely wrong and misconceived; that findings of Tribunal on issue no.1 have been misread on behalf of appellant while there is clear and specific findings that claimant has failed to prove occurrence/accident in question by use of offending Bolero No.U.P.-54-L-9500 in question due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. He pointed out that at the time of disposal of issue no.2 with regard to validity of driving license of driver of Bolero vehicle at page 12 of the impugned order, also the Tribunal has observed that though the claimant has failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle in question in the accident in question, yet it is proved from the evidence on record that driver of offending Bolero vehicle in question was holding a valid and active driving license at the time of alleged accident.

¶15

Upon hearing parties' counsel and perusal of record, I find that findings of Tribunal are absolutely clear where the Tribunal has held that P.W.-1 is not eye witness of incident and presence of P.W.-2 is doubtful at the place of accident. Disbelieving the evidence of P.W.-2 Tribunal has come a definite conclusion that claimant has failed to prove occurrence of the accident by use of Bolero Vehicle No. U.P.-54-L-9500 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Since the accident in question is not proved to have taken place by use of vehicle in question, the question of granting any compensation under no fault liability and Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act according to Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act does not arise. The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. The impugned award dated 24.9.2015 is upheld.

¶17

Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action, if any.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 Kpy

Upendra Chauhan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Chauhan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Inspector Singh and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Nirmala Devi

Ram Babu and Anr. Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Rm.M

Raju and 3 Others Vs Mahar Chand and 3 Others

Smt. Savitri Singh Since Dead and Others Vs Shambhu Nath Singh and Others

Smt. Munni Devi and Another Vs Anand Prakash