Dismissed

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Bareilly v. Ram Sewak and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021FAFO/21/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, against a motor accident claim award. The court held that the appellant failed to examine its own driver, who could have proven the accident was false, and therefore could not capitalize on this procedural lapse. Burden of proof regarding alibi shifts to the party raising that plea.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; record sent back to the tribunal.

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Bareilly Vs Ram Sewak and 4… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 21 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Bareilly Respondent :- Smt. Kamla Devi And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Shesh Kumar Srivastava,Amit Kumar Singh,Ram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly being aggrieved of award dated 27.09.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Bareilly in Claim Case No. 409 of 2015, on the ground that claimants have failed to examine material eye-witness/informant, who had lodged FIR and therefore, the factum of accident becomes doubtful.

¶7

The fact of the matter is that there is no need for the claimants to examine the author of the FIR, as has been already held by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in case of Anil Tiwari and Others vs. Saheb Singh and Others, (2000) 1 M.P.L.J. 59.

¶8

As far as factum of accident with the J.C.B. Loader of Nagar Nigam is concerned, appellant could have examined their own driver namely, Arif S/o Mukhtar Ahmad to deny the accident and prove that their vehicle has been falsely implicated. The Nagar Nigam, Bareilly did not bother to examine their own driver, who was the best witness to prove or disprove the factum of the accident and therefore, for their own lapse, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly cannot take advantage by filing this appeal, as they have been negligent in conducting their case and not examining their driver. In fact whenever a plea of alibi is taken that the respondent was not driving the vehicle, it is well settled that the burden lies on the person who raises such plea. Therefore, it was essential on the part of the person raising such a plea to appear in the witness box to state that he was sick and not driving the vehicle as held in case of Laxmi vs. Nand Lal Tahalramani, (1991) 1 M.P.L.J. 240 (D.B.) . It will also not be out of place to mention that burden of proof has two distinct meanings. Section 101 of the Evidence Act deals with the aspect concerning law and pleadings whereas Section 102 of the Evidence Act deals with the matter of adducing evidence. In

¶9

a claim application, burden of proof, in the first sense, certainly lies on the claimant. If he examines himself and his witness, if any, and if the evidence is found to be acceptable, the onus shifts on the tort feaser to prove those circumstances, if any, which dislodged the assertions of the claimants. If the tort feaser fails to prove before the court, any fact or circumstances which tends to affect the evidence led by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to ask the court to hold that he has established the case and on that basis to make a just award, as has been held in case of Ranchhod Bhai Somabhai and Others vs. Babubhai Bhailalbhai and Others, AIR1982 Gujarat 308 (D.B.).

¶10

Nobody can take advantage of his own negligence, therefore, appeal filed by the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly fails and is dismissed . Record be sent back to the tribunal.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 Vikram/-

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Bareilly v. Ram Sewak and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Bareilly v. Ram Sewak and 4 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

Samrendra Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs Mohd. Shahid and 2 Others

Asha Soni and Another Vs Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua and 2 Others

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs Suhail Ahmad and 5 Others

General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and Another Vs Smt. Saritpal and 5 Others

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Thru Its Secy. Vs Moti Ram Deceased and 2 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banwari Lal and Others