Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kamlawati Devi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021FAFO/46/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal by an insurance company challenged an award regarding a motor accident claim. The appellant alleged false implication based on discrepancies in an eye-witness testimony about the vehicle number. The court found no contradiction in the evidence or proof of false implication and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award dated 11.09.2020 in Claim Case No. 214 of 2016 was upheld.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kamlawati… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 46 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Kamlawati Devi And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Chandra Prakash Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Chandra Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the award dated 11.09.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Claim Case No. 214 of 2016, on the ground that there is discrepancy in the evidence of eye-witness PW2-Rama Shankar, inasmuch as Rama Shankar had admitted that author of the FIR namely, Abhay Pratap Singh was with him at the time of the accident and he had given number of the offending truck to the author of the FIR, yet FIR was lodged against truck no. UP 57 T 7663. It is submitted that based on testimony of PW2, it is apparent that PW2 could not depose clearly, as to how number of offending vehicle was mentioned in the FIR as UP 57 T 7663 in place of UP 57 T 0678. Placing emphasis on such testimony, it is submitted that prima facie it appears to be a case of false implication of truck bearing registration no. UP 57 T 0678.

¶7

Sri C.P. Misra supports the award and submits that there is no infirmity in the award calling for interference.

¶8

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has come on record that PW2 clearly deposed that out of these two vehicles namely, UP 57 T 0678 was in front, followed by another vehicle UP 57 T 7663. This witness has admitted that he had seen the offending vehicle and given number of the truck as UP 57 T 0678. This witness has also admitted that two vehicles were moving in close proximity and it is on the oral intimation of his that FIR was lodged by Abhay Pratap Singh. It has come on record that this witness deposed that at the time of the incident, Mukesh was injured whereas Abhay Pratap Singh was fortuitously saved from the accident. Therefore, taking this circumstances into consideration that Abhay Pratap Singh himself was a partial victim of the accident and was scarcely left untouched, read with the statement of PW2 that he had given number to Abhay

¶9

Pratap Singh, author of the FIR, there is no contradiction in the testimony of PW2 in regard to implication of vehicle bearing registration no. UP 57 T 0678, coupled with the fact that tribunal has taken into consideration filing of challan in Criminal Case No. 443 of 2016, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC against defendant no. 2 and the driver of the vehicle.

¶10

I am of the view that in absence of any contrary evidence to show that it is a pure and direct case of false implication and the two vehicles were not moving in close proximity, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. In fact, it was open to the appellant to have examined the owner-driver of truck no. UP 57 T 0678 to bring out the correct facts on record. But it appears from the record that even they were not examined before the court of law.

¶11

In view of such facts, no interference is required in the impugned award, as it cannot be said that it is an outright case of false implication of the offending vehicle. Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Vikram/-

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kamlawati Devi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kamlawati Devi and 5 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

Shiv Bahadur Nishad and Another Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 6 Others

Uttrakhand Parivahan Nigam Vs Balkeerat Singh and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Meena Devi and 3 Others

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Shiv Ram and Another

Sarla @ Rani Vs Sahiram Yadav and 2 Others

Sarla @ Rani and Another Vs Sahiram Yadav and 2 Others