Dismissed

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sonika and 6 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021FAFO/1966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the insurance company challenged a Tribunal award accepting HR 51 Q 5948 as the responsible vehicle, arguing the FIR was initially against an unknown truck and newspaper reports supported this. The court rejected the appeal, holding that minor contradictions were not material and evidence was to be tested on preponderance of probability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2018 is upheld.

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1966 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Sonika And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Anjit Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 09.01.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Ghaziabad in Claim Case No. 581 of 2012, on the ground that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle. Later on, Maruti Car bearing registration no. HR 51 Q 5948 has been shown to be involved in the accident.

¶7

It is submitted that this is contrary to the evidence available with the insurance company as was produced before the learned tribunal. It is submitted that newspaper report, as was published in 'Amar Ujala' was produced to show that accident had in fact taken place with a truck and not a maruti car. It is further submitted that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW2 and PW3, inasmuch as PW2 deposed that he was informed by the police about the incident whereas PW3 deposed that he had informed the family member of the deceased on the basis of the I-card, which was recovered from the pocket of the deceased. Based on such premise, it is submitted that appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside on the ground of false implication of the vehicle i.e., maruti car.

¶8

Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, on the other hand, submits that tribunal has already rejected the plea of the insurance company raised on the basis of some newspaper cutting. It has held that neither such cuttings have been substantiated nor any basis has been given for such news item.

¶9

It is further submitted that as far as driver and owner of the vehicle are concerned, they were not examined before the tribunal at the instance of the insurance company and insurance company also did not examine any independent witness to controvert the evidence of PW3, who is an eye-witness. It is submitted that minor contradiction in the evidence of PW2-Tika

¶10

Ram, brother of the deceased and PW3, who is an eye-witness is not material especially, when PW2 is not an eye-witness to the incident and was admittedly at his home at the time of the incident.

¶11

After going through the documents available on record and evidence adduced by the rival parties, I am of the view that there is no such material contradiction in the testimony of PW3, so to render it unbelievable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anita Sharma and Others vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2021) 1 SCC 171 , it has been held that in claim cases, evidence is to be tested on the preponderance of the probability and the principles of strict rule of evidence, proving a point beyond reasonable doubt, is not available in claim cases, which are adjudged under a benevolent provision contained in Motor Vehicles Act.

¶12

When examined from this perspective, then in absence of any evidence to the contrary that vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, and there being no evidence to the effect to substantiate that car has been falsely implicated, ground of false implication merely because FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle is not made out.

¶13

Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Vikram/-

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sonika and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sonika and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamtesh and 2 Others Vs Mesers Mateshwari Engineering and Electrical Works and 2 Others

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kusum and 5 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Heera Devi and 2 Others

Jag Lal and Another Vs Vinod and 2 Others

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vimla Devi and Others

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Allahabad Vs Anil Kumar and 2 Others