Dismissed

Unitedindia Insurance Co. v. Mohd. Jahida Khatoon and Others

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2024FAFO/305/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the insurer's challenge to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,13,500. Upholding the Tribunal's order, the Court held that the insurer failed to adduce admissible evidence regarding alleged insurance backdating or the deceased's forgery, leading to categorical findings against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit based on the absence of admissible evidence.

Unitedindia Insurance Co. Vs Mohd. Jahida Khatoon… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42743

¶3

Reserved

¶4

Court No. - 5

¶5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 305 of 2001

¶6

Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Respondent :- Mohd. Jahida Khatoon And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- Ravindra Pratap Singh,S.M.A.Zaidi

¶7

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No.1 to 5.

¶9

The appellant through this appeal has challenged the order and award dated 9.4.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIth Additional District Judge, Barabanki in M. A.C.P. No.321 of 1997 and M.A.C.P. No.270 of 1999 whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,13,500/- along with 9% simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, in favour of the claimants.

¶10

Facts of the case, in brief, are that Jeep No.UP-41/8715 owned by Mr. Krishna Kishore was being driven by Mr. Akbar Ali on 10.9.1997 and all of a sudden, due to break down of crank shaft, the Jeep collided with a tree near Newli Jheel, Village Newli, Police Station Satrik,Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki. At the time of the aforesaid accident, Jeep was being driven by Mr. Akbar Ali and one Guddu was sitting

¶11

¶12

in the Jeep as cleaner and both died in the said accident.

¶13

The M.A.C.P. No. 321 of 1997 was filed by the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased Akbar Ali. The M.A.C.P. No. 270 of 1999 was filed by father, mother and brothers as well as sisters of the deceased Akbar Ali.

¶14

Both the aforesaid claim petitions were clubbed together and have been decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide common order dated 9.4.2001 whereby total compensation of Rs.2,13,500/- along with 9% simple interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.321 of 1997 and Claimants No.1 and 2 of M.A.C.P. No.270 of 1999 and further Claimants No.3 to 7 of M.A.C.P. No. 270 of 1999 have not been found to be dependent on deceased Akbar Ali therefore, their claim for compensation has been rejected.

¶15

The claimants proved the accident by producing witnesses and further it was demonstrated before the learned Tribunal that the Jeep in question was insured by the appellant under a valid cover note of insurance and also that there was a valid driving licence with the deceased which stood renewed for the period from 15.7.1995 to 14.7.1998.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there was a cover note of insurance of the Jeep in question on 10.9.1997 and the period of insurance was from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 and since the accident took place on 10.9.1997 itself therefore, it appears that the vehicle in question was got insured by preparing back dated papers. It has further been submitted that the appellant has filed a

¶17

¶18

survey report before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wherein a photocopy of the letter issued from the competent authority was filed, wherein it was mentioned that the driving licence of deceased Akbar Ali was forged document but even then learned Tribunal in most illegal manner has fastened the liability of compensation on the appellant.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that from the facts of the case it is crystal clear that the claimants themselve pleaded before the learned Tribunal that one Guddu was in the Jeep at the time of accident in the capacity of cleaner therefore, it is apparent that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose though the said vehicle was not registered as a commercial vehicle, as such the liability of compensation cannot be fastened on the appellant.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 has submitted that a valid insurance cover note was produced before the learned Tribunal and thereby it was demonstrated that the period of insurance cover of the vehicle in question was from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 and further appellant has not produced any witness and has also not submitted any document before the learned Tribunal to show that there was any back dating while preparing the insurance cover note therefore, in absence of any evidence, the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that insurance cover note of the vehicle has been prepared by back dating, on its face is unsustainable.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No.1 to

¶22

¶23

5 has argued that so far as the issue of validity of the driving licence of the deceased Akbar Ali is concerned, learned Tribunal has considered the said issue in detail and on the basis of evidence available on record, has recorded finding in its order that the Insurance Company could not produce any admissible evidence to prove that driving licence was a forged document therefore, now without there being any further evidence on record, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the said issue again.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 has also argued that so far as the issue raised by the appellant in this appeal that since Guddu was cleaner of the Jeep in question therefore, the Jeep was being used for commercial purpose and without there being any registration as commercial vehicle, the liability of compensation does not lie on the appellant, is concerned, the said argument on its face is unsustainable as the appellant neither before the learned Tribunal nor before this Court has led any evidence to prove that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose.

¶25

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the occurrence of the accident in question has been proved by the claimants by leading evidence.

¶26

This Court finds that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding Issue No.3 has considered the validity of the insurance cover of the Jeep in question and on the basis of evidence on record, has recorded finding and has

¶27

¶28

concluded that the vehicle in question was having a valid insurance cover provided by the appellant. The relevant portion of the finding recorded by the Tribunal is being extracted as under:

¶29

;kphx.k us vius dFku ds leFkZu esa chek doj uksV la[;k 507170 dh QksVks izfr nkf[ky dh gS ftlds vuqlkj ;g okgu fnukad 10-997 ls 9-9-98 rd chfer FkhA mYYks[kuh; gS fd ;g nq?kZVuk Hkh fnukad 10-9-97 dh gS ijUrq chek dEiuh }kjk ;g vkifRRk ugha mBkbZ xbZ gS fd nq?kZVuk gksus ds mijkUr bl okgu dks cSd MsfVax djrs gq, chfer fd;k x;k gSA chek dEiuh dh vksj ls chek ikfy'kh dkxt la[;k lh&40 dks nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa chek dEiuh ds fuEu Lrj ds deZpkfj;ksa ds lafyIr gksus dh laHkkouk gS ij pwafd chek dEiuh }kjk dksbZ vkifRRk ugha mBkbZ xbZ gS vkSj u gh muds }kjk /kkjk 170 eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZRk dksbZ izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vr% i=koyh esa miyC/k vfHkys[kh; lk{; ls gh fuf'pr :i ls vo/kkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu la[;k ;w0ih0&41@8715 thi foi{kh ua0&3 ;wukbVsM bf.M;k ba';ksjsUl dEiuh ls izHkkoh :i ls chfer FkhA

¶30

This Court further finds that the issue of vehicle being used as a private vehicle or commercial vehicle and further issue of validity of driving licence of the deceased Akbar Ali have been dealt with by the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record and have been decided against the appellant. The relevant portion of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is extracted as under:

¶31

chek dEiuh us ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS tks ;g izekf.kr djs fd okgu Lokeh }kjk nq?kZVuk ds le; ;k mlds igys bl okgu dk iz;ksx O;olkf;d dk;Z ds fy, vFkok ifCyd dSfj;j ds :i e s a fd;k tkrk FkkA okgu dk ou Vkbe VSDl tek gS tSlk fd dkxt la[;k lh&30 iaft;u izek.k i= ls izekf.kr gSA

¶32

vc U;k;kf/kdj.k dks dsoy bruk ns[kuk gS fd D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; e`rd pkyd vdcj vyh ds ikl dksbZ Mªkbfoax ykblsa'k Fkk vFkok ughA ;kphx.k dh vksj ls vdcj vyh ds Mªkbfoax ykblsa'k dh izfr dkxt la[;k [k&8 nkf[ky dh xbZ gSA foi{kh ua0&1 dk dguk gS fd mUgksaus vdcj vyh dks fu;qDr djrs le; bl ykblsa'k dks lgh] cS/k ,oa izHkkoh le>k Fkk ,oa xqMQsFk esa blh vk/kkj ij bls pkyd ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k FkkA mldk dguk gS fd ;g ykblsa'k fnukad 15-1-83 dks vkj0Vh0vks0 y[kuÅ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa bls ckn esa fnukad 15-7-95 ls

¶33

¶34

14-7-98 rd uohuhd`r fd;k x;k FkkA okgu Lokeh us vius l'kiFk c;ku esa bl ckr dks dgk gS fd mlus vdcj vyh dks xqMQsFk esa pkyd ds :i esa mlds pkyd ykblsa'k dks izHkkoh le>rs gq, vLFkkbZ :i ls fu;qDr fd;k FkkA bl fcUnq ij chek dEiuh }kjk bl Lkk{kh ls dksbZ Hkh ftjg ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj ftjg u djus dk dskbZ larks"ktud dkj.k Hkh ugha n'kkZ;k x;k gSA chek dEiuh dh vksj ls ,d dkxt lh&42 vf[ky dqekj feJk losZ;j dh fjiksVZ dh QksVks izfr e; chek dEiuh dks nh xbZ ykblsaflx vFkkVhZ dh fjiksVZ izsf"kr djrs gq, ;g dgk x;k fd ;s nksuksa dkxt ;g izekf.kr djrs gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; pkyd ds ikl dksbZ cS/k ykblsa'k ugha FkkA losZ;j dh fjiksVZ dh QksVks izfr nkf[ky dh xbZ gS tks losZ;j }kjk chek dEiuh dks lEcksf/kr dh xbZ gSA blh izdkj ykblsflax vFkkVhZ }kjk fjiksVZ Hkh chek dEiuh dks gh nh xbZ gSA bu nksuksa vfHky s [kksa dks fof/k vuqlkj izekf.kr djus dk dksbZ Hkh सफल iz;kl chek dEiuh }kjk ugh fd;k x;k gSA chek dEiuh }kjk dsoy bruk dg nsuk gh i;kZIr ugha gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; pkyd ds ikl cS/k pkyd ykbZlsUl ugh FkkA ;g okn&fcUnq muds dFku ds vk/kkj ij fofuf'pr fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa ;g mudk mRRkjnkf;Ro Fkk fd bl okn&fcUnq dks os fof/k vuqlkj izekf.kr djrsA ;g nksuksa vfHkys[k ifCyd MkD;wesUV ugha gS vr% fcuk izekf.kr fd;s ;g lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gSA

¶35

In view of the aforesaid categorical findings recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its order dated 9.4.2001, this Court is of the view that the appellant has not led any admissible evidence in support of the arguments raised in this appeal before the Tribunal and the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has decided the claim petition on the basis of evidence available on record, by recording categorical findings.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this appeal filed by the appellant lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

Order Date :- 10.6.2024 Salim

¶38

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

Unitedindia Insurance Co. v. Mohd. Jahida Khatoon and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unitedindia Insurance Co. v. Mohd. Jahida Khatoon and 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

Paramanand Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Randheer Singh and Others vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and Others

Bhupendra Singh Visen vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Nagar Vikas, Deptt. Lko and Another

Girendra Bahadur Singh Vs Santosh Kumar Mishra and Ors.

Smt. Manju and Ors. Vs Santosh Kumar Pandey and Another

Mohd. Shareef and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Revenue, Lucknow and Others