Disposed

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Madhuri Yadav and Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024FAFO/199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court admitted an appeal challenging an insurance claim following a motor accident. The court issued directions for serving notice to additional respondents and summoning lower court records to facilitate the inquiry into the deposit of the decretal amount.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to respondents no.5, 6 and 7; lower court record summoned; deposit of decretal amount required to avoid coercive action.

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 199 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Respondent :- Madhuri Yadav And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satyajit Banerji Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Agrawal,Shivansh Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Satyajeet Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shivansh Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of the claimant respondent nos.1 to 4, who submits that he has filed Vakalatnama in the Registry in place of learned counsel for the caveator Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accident in question dated 23.01.2018 at 06:30 in the evening is not proved because the E.T.I.M. report of the bus, which was going from Kaiserbagh to Sitapur indicates that first ticket was issued at 19:02:37 on 23.01.2018, therefore the bus could not have been at the spot, which is about half an hour away from the bus stand at the time of accident at 06:30 PM. He further submits that there is contradiction in the case of the claimant respondents and the U.P.S.R.T.C. because the claimant respondents have pleaded that the bus had hit from the back side to the scooty of the deceased, whereas as per case of the respondent no.4 i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C. the deceased had himself hit the bus from the back side.

¶7

He also, on the basis of a technical examination report dated 29.01.2018 placed on record at page no.17 submits that the scooty was not damaged at all, which is not possible in an accident with bus. He further submits that in the inspection of the bus on 01.02.2018, which was standing in front of the Police Station- Madiyaon, the same was badly damaged. He also submits that the father of the deceased, who was a retired employee, can not be dependent on the deceased, therefore the deduction of 1/4 is also wrong. He relies on The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anand Pal and Others arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7805 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and judgment and order dated 24.11.2021 passed in First Appeal From Order No.443 of 2006 by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

¶8

Others; (2009) 6 SCC 121 .

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant respondents submits that the accident was proved by the eye witness i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. He further submits that the technical examination report of the scooty was not placed on record before the tribunal, therefore it can not be considered at this stage. He further submits that the E.T.I.M. report without any proof that at the relevant time when the ticket was issued, the bus was at the Kaiserbagh can not be relied particularly when the accident had been admitted by the U.P.S.R.T.C. under the administration of whom the bus was being run.

¶10

The matter requires consideration.

¶11

Admit.

¶12

Issue notice to the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 returnable at an early date.

¶13

Summon the lower court record.

¶14

In case the total decreetal amount alongwith the interest till the date of deposit is deposited within a period of six weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant.

¶15

On deposit of the aforesaid amount by the appellant, the same shall be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank initially for a period of one year with an auto renewal facility.

¶16

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Haseen U.

¶17

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

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Madhuri Yadav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Madhuri Yadav and Others

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

Ram Kripal and Another vs Mst. Reeta Devi and Another

Sanjay Singh vs Smt. Bacchi Pandai and Another

Ghasite Prasad vs Smt. Premavati and Another

Prakash Baal Vidya Mandir U/C Ram Prakash Yadav vs Bhullu Prasad and Others

M/S, Rama Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri Pradeep Arya vs Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh and Others

Rakesh and Others vs Surendra Pratap Singh and Others