Partly allowed

Smt. Usha Devi and Others v. Bhoori Singh and Another

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2019FAFO/368/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a workman commissioner's dismissal of a motor accident claim, a split bench held the finding that the deceased was not an employee was perverse. The court applied evidence from other allowed claimants in the vehicle and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment quashed; matter remanded to Workman's Compensation Commissioner to decide quantum within three months; application for production of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC allowed.

Smt. Usha Devi and Others Vs Bhoori Singh and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 368 of 2005

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Usha Devi And Others Respondent :- Bhoori Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

1. It goes without saying that for a period of 14 years, the respondent-Bajaj Allianz Co. Ltd. has failed to appear though notices have been sent and served.

¶6

2. This appeal challenges the dismissal of claim application preferred by the heirs of the deceased, who died in the vehicular accident, the workman commissioner in application no. 18 of 2013 dismissed the same holding that the deceased was not in employment with respondent No.1.

¶7

3. The brief facts as they appeared from the record are that the deceased was a driver and employed by respondent no.1 had employed the deceased while plying the vehicle owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2 and while he was taking the vehicle from Farh to Kumher the vehicle fell in a ditch whereby deceased-Mukesh, who was driving the vehicle died out of this vehicular accident. The insurance company raised its technical objections, where as the owner did not file any reply. The respondent No.2-Insurance company took a stand that in the claim form filled by the owner, the deceased was shown to be a friend of the owner of the vehicle. This heavily weighed with the commissioner who rejected the claim petition, unfortunately for the claimants the subsequent claim petitions filed by the other occupants of the vehicle were allowed by the

¶8

motor accident claims tribunal and the cross appeals preferred by insurance company also came to be dismissed as withdrawn. These documents are sought to be produced under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and, therefore, learned Advocate has requested this court to grant indulgence and grant relief to the appellants who are destitute heirs of the deceased who died at a young age out of vehicular accident for no fault of his.

¶9

4. Going through the judgment, it is clear that the son of appellants was not in employment is a perverse finding which requires to be upturned, as the said finding is based on no evidence the insurance company has not rebutted the evidence led by the appellants so as to contend that the deceased was not a paid driver employed by the respondent no.1.

¶10

5. It is an admitted position of fact that subsequent to the judgment passed by the employees' Court holding that the son of appellants was not the driver of the said vehicle and that relationship of owner, employed the driver has been rejected. The other claimants, who were in the vehicle had filed enhancement appeals which were allowed. The cross objections filed by insurance company were withdrawn and treated as rejected.

¶11

6. The judgment will have to be quashed and the commissioner will consider the matter from the angle of compensation.

¶12

7. The Insurance Company claim petition was withdrawn by them may that as it may be once this fact is that the judgment of the Commissioner is set aside. The matter shall go back before the Workman's Compensation Commissioner, Firozabad who shall decide the quantum within three months from today.

¶13

8. This appeal is partly allowed . No order as to costs.

¶14

9. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking court is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.8.2019 A.N. Mishra

Smt. Usha Devi and Others v. Bhoori Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Devi and Others v. Bhoori Singh and Another

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

Doopu Vs Parvos Alam and Others

Dev Nath Singh Chauhan and Others Vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs Rajveer Singh and Others

Balbir Singh Vs Chandra Pal Singh and Others

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur Vs Ram Prakash Dwivedi

Smt.Maya Devi and Another Vs Ranjeet Singh and Another