This judgment dismisses a first appeal regarding a motor accident compensation claim. The court upheld the identity of the deceased and the correctness of the vehicle implication, rejecting the appellant's contentions as baseless.
Appeal dismissed.
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. - 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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the identity of the deceased is established despite discrepancies in nomenclature.
Whether the appellant's vehicle was correctly implicated in the accident.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Istiyak
Smt. Raj Laxmi
Rajnish Kumar
Akanksha Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
