Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dismissed. Court held Insurance Company failed to examine best witness; doubt raised by claim documents insufficient. Appeal on hyper-technical grounds not maintainable and dismissed.
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
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. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 70 of 2021
Appellant :- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Meena Devi And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been fled by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bareilly in Claim Petition filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Counsel submits that no FIR was lodged and the only eye witness to the accident is a co-traveller, maternal uncle of the Deceased namely Girdhari Lal (PW-2). There is no other independent witness to the accident and therefore accident becomes doubtful. It is further submitted that though maternal uncle (PW-2) has stated that he had admitted the deceased in the hospital but from the case sheet, it appears that deceased was admitted in hospital by Kiran and Shivam and therefore, this document from hospital creates doubt to the authenticity of the claim made by PW-2,Girdhari Lal.
After hearing counsel for the appellant, it is apparent that it was open to the Insurance Company to have examined the owner and driver of the Auto in which deceased was allegedly travelling with PW-2. He would have been the best witness to accept or deny the factum of accident. Insurance Company has not bothered to examine owner/driver of the Auto in question and has thus given up its right to adduce best evidence so to confirm or deny factum of the accident. Nobody has been examined from the hospital to deny the presence of PW-2 and merely mention of Kiran and Shivam who admitted the deceased in hospital are not sufficient circumstances to be evidenced as to doubt version put forth by PW-2. In view of such facts, this appeal having filed on hyper technical grounds is not maintainable, deserves to fail and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 S.K.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed by the Insurance Company on hyper-technical grounds regarding lack of independent witnesses is maintainable.
Whether the failure to examine the owner and driver of the auto amounts to giving up the right to adduce best evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Meena Devi And 3 Others
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
