Dismissed

Sunil Kapoor v. Krishna Singh

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022FAFO/786/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an award for motor vehicle accident compensation. The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly found the appellant to be the vehicle owner and driver. The absence of an issue on ownership or the non-joining of the insurer did not invalidate the claim petition.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief granted to the appellant is vacated, and the award amount is to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

Sunil Kapoor Vs Krishna Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 786 of 1993 Appellant :- Sunil Kapoor Respondent :- Krishna Singh Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- S.P. Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent despite the fact that the matter has been called out four times.

¶5

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 19.5.1993 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Rampur in Claim Petition No.27 of 1991 awarding compensation of Rs.11,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% for the injuries which were caused.

¶6

It is submitted that the vehicle in question namely DIE 8707 was owned by Sri Chaman lal r/o 8/14, W.E.A., Karole Bagh, New Delhi on the relevant date and time of the so called accident and the appellant has no concern with the vehicle in question but he has been maliciously fastened with the so called accident.

¶7

It is further submitted that no issue was framed by the Tribunal on this material point whether the vehicle in question belong to the appellant on the relevant date and time (i.e. 4.5.1990 at 9.00 p.m.) of the so called accident, hence, on this ground alone the impugned award is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶8

The finding of fact goes to show that the vehicle belong to the appellant. It cannot be said that the claim petition was bad for non joining of Insurance Company or the owner. It is not a sine qua non to join Insurance Company as per Motor Vehicles Act. The finding of fact was that the appellant was owner and driver of the vehicle.

¶9

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶10

Interim relief granted in favour of the appellant is vacated forthwith. The amount before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal and Tribunal to disburse the amount to the claimant forthwith if yet not disbursed.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.7.2022 DKS

¶12

Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA Date: 2022.07.13 10:42:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kapoor v. Krishna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kapoor v. Krishna Singh

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

D. Chaturvedi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus Alias Kala and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chand and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/Sunited India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Krishna Kumar Agarwal

Jagannath and Others Vs Som Nath Vaish and Others

Surendra Kumar Jain and Another Vs Gurubachan Singh and Others