National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager Legal Deptt. v. Dheeraj Sharma and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2024FAFO/127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this first appeal directed the issuance of notice to the respondent and summoning of the lower court record for further consideration. The court outlined interim measures regarding the deposit of the decretal amount and investment in a fixed deposit account pending the final decision on the disputed insurance claim.

What did the court decide?

Notice to the respondent No.2 and summoning of the Lower Court Record issued; interim stay on coercive action pending deposit of decretal amount.

National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 127 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager Legal Deptt. Respondent :- Dheeraj Sharma And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Kumar Agrawal,Nitin Kumar,Sanjana Mittal,Shivansh Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard, Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Information Report of the accident in question, occurred on 15.09.2015, was lodged after five days. An eye witness was produced as P.W.-2, who has neither witness in the charge sheet nor supported the time given in the claim petition i.e. 10 A.M. and stated that the accident had occurred at 9.45 A.M. He further submits that an employee of the ECO Green Garden, in front of which the accident had occurred, an eye witness was produced as D.W.-2, who has stated that she was injured from the Scooty of the deceased and thereafter the Motorcycle had ran over her, on account of which she had died. However her evidence has not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. Thus the accident by the vehicle No.UP-32-BF-5921 is doubtful. He further submits that the income of the deceased was proved by P.W.-3, who claimed himself to be working in the Shopers Stop, Fun Republic Mall, Lucknow, where the deceased was said to be working, but he has not produced any document in regard to his employment in the Shopers Stop.

¶7

On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim petition has wrongly and illegally been allowed by the Tribunal.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 submits that the eyewitness has correctly deposed that the accident had occurred at 9.45 A.M. and in the claim petition as well as in the First Information Report the accurate time was not given and it was stated that the accident had occurred at about 10 A.M. He further submits that the D.W.-2 has not been found reliable witness by the Tribunal correctly because she has met to the owner of the offending vehicle only after about 5 years and her name has not been informed to the Police during investigation. He further submits that the income of the

¶9

deceased has correctly been proved by the oral as well as documentary evidence. Thus the submission is that the claim petition has rightly been allowed and the appeal is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. He relies on Sunita and others Versus Rajasthan SRTC; 2019 ACJ 801 (SC), Smt. Anita Versus Jaipal Singh; 2020 (1) AICC 855 (All), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Versus Suman Devi; 2017 ACJ 146 (P&H), Varadamma Versus H.Mallappa Gowda; 1972 ACJ 375 (Mysore at Bangalore), Ravi Versus Badrinarayana and others; 2011 ACJ 911 (SC), NIC Versus Chamundeswari and others; 2021 Nov.ACJ 2558 (SC) and UPSRTC Versus Rani Srivastava and others; 2006 ACJ 1864 (DB)(Alld).

¶10

Matter requires consideration.

¶11

Admit.

¶12

Issue notice to the respondent No.2 returnable at an early date.

¶13

Summon the Lower Court Record.

¶14

Steps to be taken within a week.

¶15

List with service report.

¶16

In case the appellant deposits the total decretal amount alongwith interest with the concerned Tribunal after adjusting the statutory deposit made before this court within a period of six weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant till the next date of listing.

¶17

The amount shall be invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank initially for a period of one year with an auto renewal facility.

¶18

...................................... .(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Banswar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager Legal Deptt. v. Dheeraj Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager Legal Deptt. v. Dheeraj Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Zarina Begum and Others vs Waqf Alal Aulad Thru. Mutawalli Mohd. Qazim Khan (Dec.) and Others

Sardar Singh and Ors. vs Samar Bahadur Singh

Bhairao Bux and Another vs Ram Anjor Mishra

Nanak Saran vs New India Insurance Company Ltd., Lko. Thru. Deputy Manager and Others

Adya Prasad and Another vs Satish and Others

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager Legal vs Sushila Devi and Others