Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Kumar (Since Deceased) and 6 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024FAFO/1638/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for Rs.9,23,860/- with 7% interest, contending the accident was due to the goods vehicle driver's sole negligence. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's evidence-based finding on negligence and quantum, finding no ground for interference, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- directed to be remitted back to the claims Tribunal for adjustment.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Yogesh Kumar (Since Deceased)… — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135331

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1638 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Yogesh Kumar (Since Deceased) And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Komal Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶7

This FAFO has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur in MACP No.218 of 2019(Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Alok Rajvanshi and others), by which compensation of Rs.9,23,860/- alongwith 7% annual interest has been awarded in favour of claimants/respondent nos.1/1 to 1/4.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of driver of 'Chhota Hanthi'(Appe Vehicle) and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Swift car, which was insured with the appellantInsurance Company. Appe vehicle was a goods vehicle having seating capacity of only two passengers, whereas more than 15 passengers were travelling at the time of accident. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has recorded perverse finding that driver of swift car which was insured with the appellant, was rash, negligent and was responsible for the accident. No other ground was pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶9

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

As per case of the claimants, the driver of Swift car hit 'Chhota Hanthi' from behind. The first information report was lodged against the driver of Swift car and Investigating Officer after due investigation had also submitted charge-sheet against the driver of Swift car. The claimants had produced Smt. Mamta as P.W.2 who was an eye-witness of the accident and had proved the rash and negligent driving of car driver. As per site plan, Swift car hit the Appe vehicle from behind. The opposite parties have not led any evidence in rebuttal and even driver of car was not produced in evidence.

¶11

The Claims Tribunal, after considering the documents and materials available on record, recorded finding of fact that Swift car was rash, negligent and responsible for the accident. The finding recorded by Claims Tribunal in respect of negligence of Swift car-driver is based on evidence, which are available on record and there is no illegality in any manner. So far as quantum is concerned, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot said to be excessive. No ground for interference is made out. The First Appeal From Order is devoid of merit and is dismissed .

¶12

The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be remitted back to the concerned claims Tribunal for adjustment to the amount deposited by the appellant.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 P.P.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Kumar (Since Deceased) and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Kumar (Since Deceased) and 6 Others

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

Mukesh Chand Khandelwal vs Sn Bidi Factory Pvt. Ltd. Village Krisnail and Another

Ayushi Tripathi vs Asutosh Tripathi

Smt. Srashti Sachan vs Prince Sachan

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Atarkali and 2 Others

United India Insurance Coltd vs Mamta and 2 Others

Smt. Deepika vs Dharmendra Kumar