Istiyak Vs Smt. Raj Laxmi and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

Istiyak Vs Smt. Raj Laxmi and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim on account of the death of the deceased is tenable notwithstanding that the deceased's name is disclosed variously as Pintoo Singh Chauhan and Jagdish Singh Chauhan (and as Pintoo Singh @ Jagdish Singh in certain documents, with the name interchanged by cutting). +1 more

Court's answer

On the name-discrepancy ground: P.W.2 stated in cross-examination that the boy with him at the time of the accident was Pintoo Singh Chauhan, also known as Jagdish Singh in the village, both being one and the same person who worked with him; no contrary evidence was led by the appellant and nothing was extracted in cross-examination to create doubt on his evidence; accordingly the contention that the claim is not tenable is misconceived and not tenable.

Ratio / Principle

On the false-implication/amendment ground: the appellant appeared as D.W.1 and admitted that at the time of the accident his tractor was going for transporting chaff, was being driven by his driver, and that its number is U.P. 71 N/1014, which is the offending vehicle proved by eye witnesses; the vehicle number was recognized by P.W.2 and P.W.3, eye witnesses whose veracity could not be doubted as held by the learned tribunal; hence the contention is not tenable.

Key takeaways

Both contentions of learned counsel for the appellant were held not tenable, and the appeal was held to have been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and award dated 21.02.2024/01.03.2024 in M.A.C.P. No.46 of 2017 (Smt. Raj Laxmi and others v. Istiyak and Another). The appellant-owner challenged the award on two grounds: (i) discrepancy in the deceased's name, disclosed variously as Pintoo Singh Chauhan and Jagdish Singh Chauhan; and (ii) the claim petition having initially been filed against one Intiyaz Singh and later amended to substitute the appellant Istiyak, suggesting false implication of his vehicle. Held: P.W.2 deposed that Pintoo Singh Chauhan and Jagdish Singh were one and the same person, and no contrary evidence was led nor doubt extracted in cross-examination; the appellant, appearing as D.W.1, admitted his tractor U.P. 71 N/1014 was the offending vehicle, corroborated by eye witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 whose veracity the tribunal found undoubtable. Both contentions held misconceived and baseless; appeal dismissed.

Court No. - 5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 143 of 2024

Appellant :- Istiyak Respondent :- Smt. Raj Laxmi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,Prem Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been filed assailing the judgement and award dated 21.02.2024/01.03.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No.46 of 2017; Smt. Raj Laxmi and others versus Istiyak and Another.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the deceased has been disclosed at some places as Pintoo Singh Chauhan and at some places as Jagdish Singh Chauhan and in certain documents, Pintoo Singh @ Jagdish Singh has also been mentioned. The name has also been interchanged by cutting.Therefore the claim on account of death of the deceased is not tenable. He further submits that the claim petition was filed against one Intiyaz Singh, however subsequently the same was amended and the name of the appellant Istiyak was corrected. Therefore also the claim petition was not maintainable. However without considering the above, the claim petition has been allowed, therefore it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No other ground has been urged or argued by learned counsel for the appellant.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,I have gone through the documents placed on record.

The first ground raised by the appellant is in regard to the name of the deceased. In this regard, an objection was raised by the appellant and during evidence and in cross examination of P.W.2, he has stated that the boy, who was with him at the time of accident was Pintoo Singh Chauhan and he was also known as Jagdish Singh in the village and both the persons are one and the same and he was working with him. No contrary evidence could be led by the appellant to show that Jagdish Singh and Pintoo Singh Chauhan were not one and the same person. Nothing also could be extracted in cross examination, which may create any doubt on his evidence. Therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable.

So far as the ground taken by the appellant that the vehicle of the appellant has falsely been implicated because initially the name of the owner was given as Intiyaj but subsequently after amendment the name of the appellant was corrected is concerned, the appellant had appeared in evidence as D.W.1 and he admitted in his evidence that at the time of accident his tractor was going for transporting chaff and the vehicle was being driven by the driver. He has also admitted that the number of his tractor is U.P. 71 N/1014, which is the offending vehicle and proved by eye witnesses. He also stated in his evidence that his tractor had gone to take petrol from the petrol pump on the date of accident, which was told to him by his driver. The number of the vehicle has been recognized by the P.W2 and P.W.3 who are the eye witnesses whose veracity as eye witness could not be doubted as held by the learned tribunal after considering their evidence.

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are not tenable. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds.

The appeal is,accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Akanksha Sri.

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench