Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2021FAFO/883/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an order under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company. The court held that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the appellant's unexamined affidavit of a mechanic and an uncorroborated letter from a Motor Union President to prove the vehicle was under repair at the time of the accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, and the impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is upheld.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Darshan Lal… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 883 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Darshan Lal And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Shravan Kumar Pandey,Shyam Narain Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company and Shri Shyam Narain Pandey, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the insurance company aggrieved of the award dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar on twin grounds namely there was a delay of seven months in lodging of F.I.R. and that the owner of the bus took a plea that bus was in a workshop under repair and overlooking such evidence impugned award has been passed. It is submitted that in the final report, police had initially exonerated the involvement of the bus and overlooking such facts award has been passed.

¶7

As far as the issue of final report is concerned, it is graciously submitted by Shri Rahul Sahai that it was not accepted by the concerned Magistrate and therefore, rejection of such final report cannot be faulted within the hands of the learned tribunal. However, Shri Sahai submits that there was plethora of evidence on record in the form of affidavit of the mechanic Kailash Chandra Saini which was filed as document no.50GA to show that bus was taken to the workshop, its engine was dismantled on 03.12.2012, it was sent to Kanpur for repair and was fixed on 05.12.2012 and thereafter vehicle was despatched for running on 06.12.2012 after repairs.

¶8

It is submitted that even a document written by the President of Motor Union Sorik, P.S. Bidhuna has produced

¶9

on record as document 40GA so show that on 02.12.2012 in the evening when bus was started there was some unusual sound in the engine when the engine was shut down and towed through a tractor to Chibra Mau for repair. Reading these two documents it is submitted that learned tribunal has erred in overlooking such evidence, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

Shri Pandey in his turn submits that insurance company has been given a right of recovery on the ground that bus was not having proper fitness certificate at the time of the alleged accident and therefore, insurance company is not justified in challenging the findings of the tribunal, especially when neither the insurance company nor the owner of the bus made any attempt to lead evidence of concerned motor mechanic viz., Kailash Chandra Saini to the effect that bus was standing in his workshop for repairs since 03.12.2012.

¶11

After hearing the arguments and going through the records, it is apparent that prima facie there is no illegality in the impugned award inasmuch as factum of bus not being on road could have been proved by giving the best possible evidence i.e., of the concerned motor mechanic Kailash Chandra Saini by examining him before the tribunal, but that is not done.

¶12

Tribunal has rightly discarded affidavit of Kailash Chandra Saini inasmuch as he was not examined before the court of law and no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the claimants to cross examine him on his affidavit. Letter of the so-called President of motor union has no evidentiary value, especially when he too was not produced as a witness to prove such letter and therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record calling for interference.

¶13

Appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.1.2021 VS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshan Lal and 3 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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Shukla and 2 Others

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Vs smt. Mamta Devi and 6 others

Smt. Janki Devi and Others Vs Bansi Dhar Yeti

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Tulsidas and 5 Others

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rita Singh and 7 Others

Lal Bahadur Gupta and Another Vs Shahan Shah 2 Ors.