Dismissed

Smt. Asha Dixit v. Smt. Asha Devi and Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024FAFO/344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that the deceased was a passenger sitting on the appellant's pickup vehicle when it crashed. The court rejected the appellant's argument based on witness testimony, affirmed liability, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; statutory amount remitted to the Tribunal for adjustment towards payments to claimants.

Smt. Asha Dixit vs Smt. Asha Devi and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 344 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Asha Dixit Respondent :- Smt. Asha Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Uttam Kumar Awasthi,Ved Prakash Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the PW-2 Nawal Kishore son of Shri Asha Ram has stated in his evidence that the deceased was with him and sitting on his luggage on the side of the road when the offending Pickup having Registration No.U.P.-77-T-1742 driving rashly and negligently by its driver hit them on account of which they died but the learned tribunal without considering it allowed the claim petition against the appellant on the ground that the deceased was sitting on the said Pickup. Ttherefore, the impugned judgment and award against the appellant is not tenable.

¶7

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the material placed on the records of this appeal.

¶8

The Motor Accident Claim Petition No.160 of 2019; Smt. Asha Devi and Others Vs. Smt. Asha Dixit and Others, was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi on 19.02.2019 alleging therein that the deceased Avadhesh Kumar was going from Vehicle No.U.P.-77-T-1742 from Hardoi to Mallawan for his business. Shivam was with him. When the vehicle reached near Kasrawan petrol pump, the driver of the vehicle driving it rashly and negligently dashed in the vehicle coming from the opposite side, on account of which Avadhesh Kumar and Shivam died on the spot. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged in police station- Kotwali, District- Hardoi. Avadhesh Kumar was doing sewing work and earning Rs.3300 per month. On account of death of Avadhesh Kumar, the claimant-respondents suffered mental and financial loss. Accordingly, they claimed Rs.14,70,000/- compensation. The claim petition was contested by the appellant as well as the insurance company. On the basis of pleadings of the parties four issues were framed. Thereafter oral and documentary evidence were adduced by the parties.

¶9

After considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the tribunal has recorded a finding that PW-2 has given contrary evidence in cross examination, the affidavit in examination in chief and the First Information Report. He has stated in his cross examination that he had gone for lodging the F.I.R. with Anoop to the police station and the correct report was lodged in the police station and if the correct report was lodged then as per the report the deceased was sitting on the Pickup, which dashed with some other vehicle. The evidence of PW-2 has been placed on record alongwith annexure no.3 at page no.59 to 64.

¶10

The perusal of the evidence of PW-2 indicates that he has proved that he had gone with Anoop to police station for lodging the F.I.R. and the correct report was lodged and he had not suffered any injury. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not on Pickup is misconceived and lacks merit.

¶11

Since the Pickup was insured only for the owner and the driver and there was no insurance for passengers sitting on it, therefore, the appellant being owner of the driver and the vehicle has rightly been directed to make the payment of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶12

The appeal has been filed on misconceived grounds and it is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith and in any case within a period of three weeks from today for adjusting towards the payments to be made to the claimant-respondents under the impugned award.

¶14

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 8.11.2024 Haseen U.

¶16

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

Smt. Asha Dixit v. Smt. Asha Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Asha Dixit v. Smt. Asha 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

M/S K K Spun India Ltd. vs State of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Irrigation and Water Resources and Anr.

Chandra Shekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home and Others

Jashoda Beva Thakur vs Umesh Chand Upadhyay Competent Authority Urban Land Ciling Regulation Lko.

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Shashi Kant Chaubey Vs Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Sarju Dei Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi

Jay Singh Vs Prabhan Singh and Another