Partly allowed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shakuntala and 7 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021FAFO/125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellants insured company challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award on false implication of motorcycle grounds. Court found conflicting evidence insufficient to interfere with award except modifying consortium amounts granted to dependent relatives.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of consortium damages to dependents modified; appeal otherwise dismissed.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shakuntala and 7… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 125 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Shakuntala And 7 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- Vashishtha Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of the award dated 22.10.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-I, Deoria in M.A.C.P. No.379 of 2018 on the ground that motorcycle insured with the insurance company bearing Registration No.U.P.-52-AQ-4453 has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that FIR which was lodged after four days of the incident, does not disclose number of the motorcycle and it has been lodged against an unknown vehicle which was allegedly seized from the spot. It is submitted that neither any colour, nor engine number or chassis number is mentioned in the FIR and, therefore, the story of the claimants in regard to involvement of the motorcycle becomes doubtful. On such submissions, it is submitted that award be set aside and insurance company be exonerated of its liability.

¶7

Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent supports the award.

¶8

After hearing arguments and going through the available documents on record, it is evident that case of the claimants is that the motorcycle involved in the accident was recovered from the spot of the accident itself, as driver had left the

¶9

motorcycle at the spot itself and had run away. Reason for delay in the FIR is that, deceased was taken to Pathardeva Hospital and, thereafter to Gorakhpur Medical College, where he died and thereafter, he was brought back to Deoria for post-mortem and then, cremation was carried out, therefore, family being under shock, could not lodge FIR in time.

¶10

It has come on record that Insurance Company neither examined the owner of the motorcycle, though he was impleaded as a party, nor any other independent witness to deny the factum of accident.

¶11

Insurance Company even did not bother to examine the I.O. to extract, as to whether motorcycle was seized from the spot of the accident or not. In absence of any such documentary or oral evidence on record, case of the insurance company that merely because P.W.-2 had not lodged any FIR and had approached the police after 2-3 days of the accident, it cannot be said that motorcycle has been falsely implicated.

¶12

The fact of the matter is that claimant no.1 is an illiterate lady. She was not an eye-witness to the incident. Eye-witness was allegedly P.W.-2, who deposed categorically that accident had taken place in front of him and also gave identification of the motorcycle as that of Hero Honda Company. There is no dispute as to the make of the motorcycle i.e. of Hero Honda Company in the hands of the Insurance Company.

¶13

In view of such facts, when there is a close corroboration of the offending vehicle and the testimony of P.W.-2, and there is nothing on record to show that P.W.-2 has been falsely implanted so to extract some benefit or to falsely implicate the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company has failed to lead the best possible evidence i.e. that of the owner-driver of the

¶14

motorcycle, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned award at the instance of the insurance company.

¶15

At this stage, Sri Radhey Shyam submits that learned Tribunal has erred in granting consortium to each of the claimants @ Rs.40,000/-(fourty thousand) per claimant. This needs to be modified and to this extent appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Loss of parental consortium to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-(two lakhs) allowed in favour of claimant nos.2 to 6 is set aside and to this extent, appeal is allowed in part.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.2.2021 Ashutosh

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shakuntala and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shakuntala and 7 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

Sri Suresh Chandra and Another Vs Sunindra Singh and 2 Others

Smt. Maiki Devi and Others Vs Amar Bahadur Singh and Another

Smt. Radha Devi and 3 Others Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Julie and 6 Others Vs Chola Mandalam M.S General Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Guddi Devi and 5 Others

Prakash and Others Vs Bijenderpal and Others