The Single Judge Bench allowed an appeal challenging a tribunal's order. The Court noted the respondents' non-appearance for 17 years and factual findings exonerating the insurance company, leading to an order in the appellant's favor.
The appeal is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2252 of 2004
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru.R.M. Meerut Respondent :- Smt. Bala @ Maya And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Avanish Mishra,J.N.Singh,Sunil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C.
2. Despite notices being sent, none has appeared for respondents.
3. As per office report dated 8.12.2021, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are represented by Shri Devendra Saini, Advocate, but his name is not shown in the cause list. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, the notice is not returned back, 17 years have elapsed after the filing of the appeal challenging the order of the tribunal. Respondent No.5, the process server's report has returned back with endorsement that the person does not stay at the place shown in the notice since 15 years.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant having placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court titled Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum, LAWS(SC) 2011 7 123 .
5. The vehicle was insured with Insurance Company. It is an admitted position of fact once a vehicle is insured exonerating the insurance company. The finding of fact therefore has to be interfered by this Court.
6. The learned tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court titled Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and others reported in 1997 SCC 370. However, the said judgment has been upturned and, therefore, it would be respondent No.6, Oriental Insurance Company which will be liable to pay the amount. If Road Transport Corporation (appellant) has already deposited the amount, they have the
right to recover from the insurance company, the full amount which they have deposited.
7. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed .
8. This Court is thankful to Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for insurance company for ably assisting this Court.
Order Date :- 9.12.2021 A.N. Mishra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed in view of the factors of non-appearance of respondents and reversal of the tribunal's reliance on precedent.
Whether the factum found by the lower court exonerating the insurance company warrants interference.
Whether the appellant has the right to recover the deposited amount from the insurance company given the new decision on liability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. KulsumRelied on¶5
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum, LAWS(SC) 2011 7 123
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and othersDistinguished¶7
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and others 1997 SCC 370 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
U.P.S.R.T.C.
Smt. Bala @ Maya And Others
Oriental Insurance Company
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
