Dismissed

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow v. smt. Mamta Devi and 6 others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021FAFO/1175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by UP SCTC against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that the bus's presence at the scene was logically possible given the distance and average speed, and the appellant failed to adduce cogent documentary evidence despite opportunities to do so.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to adduce cogent evidence regarding the bus's movement.

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Vs smt. Mamta… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1175 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Respondent :- Smt. Mamta Devi And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dinkar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Vashishtha Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinkar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow being aggrieved of the award dated 27.11.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Deoria in M.A.C.P. No.303 of 2013 on the ground that bus has been falsely implicated and the said bus was not available on the spot on 20.06.2014 at about 7:00 p.m. on Deoria, Gorakhpur road near Baitalpur Guduri Depo, when accident had taken place causing death of Jokhan Yadav. Learned Tribunal had framed as many as four issues namely, whether on 20.06.2013 at about 7:00 p.m., place-Guduri Depo, near Bharat Petorlium, Police Station-Gauri Bazar, DistrictDeoria Roadways Bus No. U.P.-53-AT-4077 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver, had hit the deceased from behind causing grievous injuries resulting in his death during treatment. While answering this issue, learned Tribunal has discussed evidence of P.W.-2, Kailash Yadav who was an eyewitness to the incident. This witness had verified the First Information Report, Tehrir and other details.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at about 2:00 p.m., location of the bus was in Ayodhya, therefore, bus could not have reached Deoria by 7:00 p.m., which is at a distance of about 180 k.ms. On the basis of such premise, it is submitted

¶8

that bus has been falsely implicated.

¶9

As far as this plea of the appellant is concerned, appellants were in a position to lead evidence by filing copy of the route chart and also evidence from toll-booths on route to show at what time nearest toll-booth was crossed by the offending bus, but, the appellants had not taken any pains to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of false implication of the offending bus in an accident. They have not taken pains to move an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to bring on record route chart. Besides this, admittedly, distance between Ayodhya and Deoria is 180 kms., and average speed of bus is about 40 kms. per hours, therefore, when bus had admittedly left at Ayodhya at 2:00 p.m., then its presence in or around Deoria at 7:00 p.m. is logically possible unless rebutted by any other cogent piece of evidence. It is settled principle of law that in claim cases, matters are to be adjudged on the preponderance of the evidence and given due respect to the probabilities rather than applying yardstick of strict proof beyond doubt. When tested on this touchstone, then theory put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant to deny involvement of their vehicle is not only weak but also frail, therefore, appeallant having failed to adduce cogent evidence in regard to movement of the bus, appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 13.1.2021/Ashutosh

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow v. smt. Mamta Devi and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow v. smt. Mamta Devi and 6 others

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

Smt. Vinita Devi and 2 Others Vs Babu Khan and 2 Others

Smt. Kanta Devi Alias Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Kanta Devi Alias Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Shukla and 2 Others

Smt. Janki Devi and Others Vs Bansi Dhar Yeti

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ahivaran Singh and 5 Others