Dismissed

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neetu and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021FAFO/27/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal denying relief to the appellant insurance company regarding vehicle involvement and deceased's income assessment. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no illogicality in the Tribunal's findings. The prayer to remit a disputed deposit to the Tribunal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The prayer to remit Rs. 25,000 deposited by the appellant to the claims tribunal was allowed.

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 27 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Neetu And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the award dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Mathura in M.A.C.P. No. 547 of 2017 on three grounds namely, involvement of the vehicle in question is doubtful, inasmuch as testimony of PW2-Suresh, who is a sole eye-witness to the incident is doubtful. It is also submitted that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle and subsequently during investigation, number of the offending vehicle has been brought on record, which causes doubt as to the involvement of the offending vehicle.

¶7

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the documents produced by him on record, it is apparent that in para-17 of the impugned award, learned claims tribunal has discussed testimony of PW2. Testimony of PW2 has been doubted only on a minor contradiction in this testimony i.e., during cross-examination, somewhere he has mentioned that he was driving the motorcycle and deceased was a pillion rider whereas in his examination-in-chief, his stand was that he was a pillion rider and deceased was driving a motorcycle. It has also come on record that FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, who was not an eye-witness and not by PW2, who had later on disclosed the number of the offending vehicle.

¶8

Thus, it is apparent that minor contradiction in the testimony of PW2 will not defeat the claim of the claimants.

¶9

Another ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is in regard to the income of the deceased, which has been taken @ Rs. 6,000/- (six thousand rupees) per month by the learned tribunal. As far as this aspect is concerned, accident took place on 28.07.2017. Minimum wages for an unskilled labourer was higher than Rs. 6,000/- (six thousand rupees) per month on the date of the accident,

¶10

therefore, there is no infirmity in the award of the tribunal whereby it has treated income of the deceased in fact on a lower side rather than accepting established parameters of minimum wages. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the award or appreciation of the evidence, impugned award does not calls for any interference.

¶11

Thus, appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand rupees) deposited by the insurance company, in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, be remitted to the claims tribunal to be adjusted from the claim amount.

¶13

This prayer is allowed, Registry is directed to do the needful.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Vikram/-

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neetu and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neetu and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Tulsidas and 5 Others

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rita Singh and 7 Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Darshan Lal and 3 Others

Mohd. Nafees and Another Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nirdesh Devi and 6 Others

State of U.P. and Another Vs Mahesh Chandra and Others