Partly allowed

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Lakshmi Devi and Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024FAFO/332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against an award in a motor accident claim petition. The appellant contested the tribunal's finding based on discrepancies in the driver's name alleged in the FIR and questions regarding the validity of the driving license. The court held that the driver admitted the accident and the license was valid on the accident date.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited is remitted to the Tribunal.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70941

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 332 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Respondent :- Lakshmi Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anshul Baranwal

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Shri Anshul Baranwal, learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.2024 passed in Claim Petition No.91 of 2019 (Lakshmi Devi & Another Vs. Mobin Ahmad & Another) by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur Kheri, submits that the F.I.R. was lodged showing the name of the driver Deepak Mishra, whereas the name of driver is Daya Shankar Tiwari, who had appeared. However he has stated that he is also known as Deepak but Deepak Mishra and Daya Shankar Tiwari can not be one and the same person. He further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid transport driving license on the date of accident i.e. 11.02.2019. Thus, the submission is that the impugned judgment and award is not tenable in the eyes of law.

¶7

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the records.

¶8

The claim petition was filed alleging that the deceased Sant Lal was going from his cycle from Gola Marg to Saidapur on 11.02.2019 at 10:00 O'Clock in the morning, when the driver of the truck having Registration No.UP-34-T-0499 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit him near canal, in which he died on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. The claim petition was contested by the appellant insurance company and the owner of the truck denying the averments made in the claim petition. After exchange of pleadings, four issues were framed. Thereafter oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties.

¶9

The learned tribunal, while considering the issue no.1, came to the conclusion that the deceased had died on account of hitting of cycle of the deceased by the offending truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The PW1, who had lodged the F.I.R after about three hours of the accident on the same date with the name of the driver of the

¶10

offending vehicle Deepak Mishra unknown has stated in his evidence that he was on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle had ran away after the accident. The Kata in-charge had informed the name of the driver, on the basis of which he had lodged the F.I.R.

¶11

The driver of the vehicle Daya Shankar Tiwari @ Deepak had appeared as DW-1. He admitted that he is also known by the name of Deepak. He was going to Hargaon Mill loading cane in the truck from the cane center Manyaura on 11.02.2019, when his truck was overturned on Saidapukar Bhau Link Marg. He has also stated that he used to write his name Deepak in the cane slip, therefore, it is apparent that the name as given by the driver of the offending truck to the cane center was informed to the PW-1, who is father of the deceased. He had lodged F.I.R. with the name of driver as informed by the cane center, therefore, it can not be said that he was not the driver of the truck at the time of accident, merely on account of some discrepancy in name, which may be on account of information given by the cane center. Even otherwise, apparently, the driver has admitted the accident in his evidence as disclosed above.

¶12

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid transport driving license on the date of accident is concerned, perusal of the extract of driving license placed on record as annexure no.7 indicates that the driver had a valid gap period of transport vehicle license from 19.04.2014 to 22.06.2014 and 23.06.2020 to 14.09.2020, therefore, it can not be said that the driver of the offending vehicle (truck) was not having the valid transport driver license on the date of accident i.e. 11.02.2019. The same had also been considered by the tribunal.

¶13

So far as the verification report of license relied by learned counsel for the appellant contained in annexure no.9 is concerned, the same is not of any competent authority. It is by one Mohd. Sayeed Khan, Advocate, who has not been examined to get the same proved before the tribunal, even if, it was filed, therefore, it can not be relied contrary to the authentic extract of driving license which has been proved before the tribunal.

¶14

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the learned tribunal has rightly and in accordance with law allowed the claim petition and awarded the amount. There is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.2024, which may call for any interference by this Court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is

¶15

liable to be dismissed.

¶16

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

The statutory amount deposited before this court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within four weeks from today to be adjusted in the payments to be made to the claimant-respondents.

¶18

................................................................... (Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Haseen U.

¶19

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

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Lakshmi Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Lakshmi Devi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Aliganj Lko.Thro.Its R.M. Vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Special Judge Ec Act and Ors.

Rudrabhan Singh vs Sri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Edu. Ayodhya

Kumari Rupali @ Rupali Balmiki vs Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda

Trimohan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Atul Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector,Pratapgarh and 3 Others

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Vs Lakshmi Devi and Others