Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar and Another v. Mangu and Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024FAFO/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a first appeal against a motor accident claims award. The court held that discrepancies in the FIR regarding vehicle number did not warrant interference with the Tribunal's upheld finding that evidence was unbelievable.

What did the court decide?

None. First appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Rajesh Kumar and Another vs Mangu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3354

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 4 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- Mangu And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saket Kumar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saket Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.

¶7

This first appeal from order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.249 of 2019(Rajesh Kumar and others versus Mangu and others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Hardoi.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the accident in question had taken place by Vehicle No. U.P. 30 X 0232-Santro Car. However, inadvertently in the F.I.R., Vehicle No.U.P. 30 AA 4501-Bolero was got mentioned. However the same was corrected on an application and, accordingly, the charge sheet was filed against the driver of Vehicle No.U.P. 30 X 0232 but without considering it, the claim petition of the appellants has been dismissed, merely, on the ground of discrepancy in mentioning the vehicle number, which could not have been done. He relies on order dated 08.12.2017 passed in F.A.F.O. No.203 of 2012(Smt. Guddan Sharma versus Irshad Ahmad and others).

¶9

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the documents placed on record alongwith the appeal.

¶10

The accident had taken place on 18.12.2018 at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening. The F.I.R. was lodged after one month and 12 days through the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the vehicle number U.P. 30 AA 4501-Bolero was given. However, subsequently the vehicle number was got changed as U.P. 30 X 0232-Santro

¶11

Car.

¶12

Before the Tribunal, evidence of three witnesses was adduced, first of whom P.W 1-Naresh stated that he was informed about the accident by the driver of Vehicle of 108 number. Vijay Singh Verma,an eye witness was produced as P.W.2, who stated in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the accident by vehicle No.U.P. 30 X 0232-Santro Car and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He further stated that he had given the information about the accident to the family members of the deceased after 2-3 days and thereafter he stated that he had given a paper writing number of the vehicle to Naresh, father of the deceased Shivam. Therefore on the one hand P.W.1-Naresh stated that the information was given to him by driver of vehicle of 108 number, whereas P.W.2-Vijay Singh Verma stated that information was given by him to Naresh who was produced as P.W.1. Third witness Sushil Kumar, examination-in-chief of whom was filed but he was not produced for cross examination.

¶13

P.W. 1-Naresh stated in his evidence that by mistake he had given the number of Vehicle No.U.P. 30 AA 4501-Bolero Car in the first information report. He also stated in his evidence that on information given by certain persons, he had got the number of Bolero car recorded in the first information report and on the information given by Sri Vijay Singh Verma-P.W.2 the same was got corrected as U.P.X 0232-Santro Car, whereas as per the evidence of P.W.2-Vijay Singh Verma the vehicle number was informed to Naresh i.e. P.W.1 after 2-3 days of the accident and the F.I.R. was lodged after one month 12 days,for which the application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. was filed. Therefore it cannot be said that it is the result of mistake because the F.I.R. was lodged on an application moved by the appellant after one month twelve days of the accident. Even otherwise, there is contradiction in regard to the information of accident and vehicle number given to P.W.1 who got the F.I.R. lodged as deposed by him and also in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The claim petition was filed on the basis of the accident with Santro Car, which was got corrected

¶14

after lodging of the F.I.R.

¶15

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the evidence was not believable and the accident by the Santro Car and claim of compensation on account of it is not tenable. It has also been noticed that the Santro Car and Bolero car have different identities.

¶16

So far as the judgment relied in the case of Smt. Guddan Sharma versus Irshad Ahmad and others(supra) is concerned, the facts of this case are different and it is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶17

In view of above, this Court is of the view that findings recorded by learned Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court and the impugned judgment and award has been passed in accordance with law after considering the pleadings and evidence on record by a reasoned and speaking order. The appeal has been filed on mis-conceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

11. Dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Akanksha

¶20

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

Rajesh Kumar and Another v. Mangu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and Another v. Mangu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Suthara Devi

Mohd. Naeem Vs Shiv Kumar Nigam

Hafeez Vs Fagir Ali and Another

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.