Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager v. Sunil Kumar an Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024FAFO/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant National Insurance Company. The sole contention was that the vehicle lacked a valid permit on the date of the accident due to a discrepancy in Form-54 dates. The court held that the Tribunal correctly found the permit valid from April 2015 to April 2020 based on the filed documents and rejected the appellant's challenge.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal is dismissed.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2547

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 5 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager Respondent :- Sunil Kumar An Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Awasthi,Manish Kumar,Mridula Saxena

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.P. Tripathi learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3/claimants.

¶7

This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2023 passed in claim petition no.388 of 2016 (Smt Shama @ Munni and ors vs Sunil Kumar and ors) by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur.

¶8

The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that vehicle-in-question i.e. Maruti Van No.UP32FN-0771 was not having valid permit on the date of accident i.e.09.09.2016 because as per Form-54 filed by the appellants, it was initially for a period w.e.f. 27.04.201526.04.2016, thereafter, it was extended from 15.09.2016 to 17.04.2017 but the tribunal has failed to consider the same.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that permit of the vehicle-in-question was All India permit which was valid from 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2020, which is mentioned in the photocopy of Form-54 filed by the appellants as Annexure-3. However thereafter 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2016 and All India 15.09.2016 to 17.04.2017 has been

¶10

mentioned without any basis. Only a photocopy of the same was filed before the tribunal and the same was also not got proved by any witness. He further submits that the appellants had filed the permit showing the validity of the permit from 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2020 which is given in the aforesaid Form54 and considering the same, the impugned judgment and award has rightly been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in it.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record and the impugned judgment and award.

¶12

As mentioned in the impugned award, the appellants had filed the photocopy of the verification report of the permit of Maruti Van and musanna of claim petition. It is also recorded in the impugned judgment that no other oral or documentary evidence has been filed by the appellants. The photocopy of Form-54 annexed at page-43 of the appeal indicates that the permit was valid from 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2020. However, thereafter, the dates are mentioned as 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2016 and All India-15-09-2016 to 27-04, though in the typed copy, it is disclosed that it is 17.04.2017. Only initials have been made by somebody on the said photocopy and the date is 04.05.2018 without any seal of concerned office. Therefore, even in the photocopy of Form-54, validity of permit is mentioned w.e.f. 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2020 and nothing has been disclosed about the dates mentioned thereafter except All India at one place. Therefore if the date of permit was changed or if the subsequent dates had any concern with the validity of permit then it should have been mentioned in the said document or got proved by adducing cogent evidence.

¶13

The tribunal has recorded a specific finding in regard to the

¶14

issue no.3 that photocopy of the registration certificate of Maruti Van UP32FN-0771 has been filed as paper no.41Ga1/17, tax payment receipt photocopy as paper no.41Ga1/18, photocopy of the tourist permit as paper no.41Ga1/19 and photocopy of fitness certificate as paper no.41Ga1/20 and all the said documents show that they were valid and effective on the date of accident. Accordingly, the vehicle was being used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy issued by the National Insurance Company on the basis of valid documents.

¶15

On a query being put, learned counsel for the appellants has also failed to indicate as to how, two dates have been given after showing validity of the permit in Annexure No.3 at page 43 filed by the appellants. However he could not dispute the dates 27.04.2015 to 26.04.2020.

¶16

In view of the above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and award dated 09.10.2023 has rightly been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and award.

¶17

First Appeal From Order is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 10.1.2024

¶20

Harshita

¶21

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager v. Sunil Kumar an Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager v. Sunil Kumar an Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Halwasiya Center Maintenance Services LLP Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Saraswati Singh Vs M/S Gss Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Sri Gayasuddin Khan

Sadiq Ali and Another Vs Smt.Santosh Kumari Sharma

Amarnath and Anr. Vs Bholanath Died Thru. Prem Chandra Gupta and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager Vs Sunil Kumar an Others

Ram Anjor and Others Vs Gram Sabha Badgaon Thru. Pradhan, Gram Sabha Badgaon, Amethi and Another

Shiv Shankar Singh vs Shwetab Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Milkipur, Faizabad / Ayodhya