Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs Krishna Kumar and Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 230 of 2001

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Singh

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Krishna Kumar And Others	Versus ..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Nakul Dubey, Ravendra S Rajawat	Pratap Singh, S
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Badri Prasad Singh, Srivastava, Badri Prasad	Ashish Kumar Singh

¶6

with

¶7

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 194 of 2001

¶8

Krishna Kumar And Others

¶9

.....Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

Pradeep Kumar Singh And Others

¶12

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: B.P.Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Nakul Dubey, Ramesh Chandra Sharma

¶13

Court No. - 21

¶14

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶15

Heard Shri S S Rajawat, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.7-Insurance Company and Shri Badri Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the claimants.

¶16

The factual matrix of F.A.F.O. No.230/2001 is that the incident occurred on June 20, 1995 due to overturn of the bus and three people died in the accident. The appellant was the owner of the bus and respondent No.7 is the Insurance Company and respondent Nos.1 to 6 are claimants. The vehicle in question was insured by respondent No.7 and insurance was valid from February 16, 1995 to February 15, 1996. The vehicle was driven by one Shiv Narain Singh with valid license which was valid from March 26, 1995 to March 25, 1999.

¶17

The factual matrix of F.A.F.O. No.194/2001 is that the incident occurred

¶18

FAFO No. 230 of 2001

¶19

2

¶20

on June 20, 1995 due to overturn of the bus and three people died in the accident. The appellants are the claimants. The vehicle in question was insured by respondent No.2 and was valid from February 16, 1995 to February 15, 1996. The vehicle was driven by one Shiv Narain Singh with valid license which was valid from March 26, 1995 to March 25, 1999.

¶21

Legal heirs of the deceased Yunus had preferred a claim petition bearing Claim Petition No.59/74/96 and the same was allowed by the Claims Tribunal vide order dated March 30, 1999 whereby Rs.1,43,000/- was awarded as compensation and liability was fastened on the Insurance Company. In this case, the license of the driver was treated to be valid and the vehicle was also to be treated as insured. This award has attained finality and the same was not assailed in any court.

¶22

Legal heirs of the second deceased Mr. Jitendra Awasthi, had preferred a claim petition bearing Claim Petition No.14/70/96 and legal heirs of the third deceased Ms. Sadhna Awasthi, had also preferred claim petition bearing Claim Petition No.15/70/96. From perusal of record, it appears that both the claims were allowed and legal heirs of both the deceased were awarded compensation of Rs.34,500/- separately. However, the liability was fastened upon the bus owner instead of Insurance Company, on the ground that the bus was driven by a person without having valid driving license and thereafter the liability for payment was fastened on the bus owner.

¶23

The bus owner has assailed the order dated January 31, 2001 passed in aforesaid claim petition by filing the instant F.A.F.O. No.230 of 2001.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the bus owner is liable for payment of compensation on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident.

¶25

He further submits that on same set of facts, the Tribunal has given two different findings. As far as the claim petition of the legal heirs of Yunus is concerned, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver had a valid driving license and the insurance policy was also in force. However, for the other deceased persons who also died in the same accident, the Tribunal had given a contrary finding. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in F.A.F.O. No.218/2001 (Shiya Ram And Others vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh And Others) and another connected petition bearing F.A.F.O. No.231/2001

¶26

FAFO No. 230 of 2001

¶27

3

¶28

(Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. Siyaram and others) has passed a judgment dated 20.02.2020 whereby the F.A.F.O. No.231/2001 was partly allowed and the court has held as under:-

¶29

"In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that as far as the vehicle in question is concerned i.e. the bus bearing No. UP J 6565 was being driven by the driver having valid and effective driving license which was on record bearing Paper No. Ga-39 and was valid on the date of accident. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal contrary to the aforesaid is liable to be set aside.

¶30

Since there is no challenge to the quantum, accordingly, the award dated 31.01.2001 stands affirmed except with the modification that the amount awarded shall be paid and satisfied by the Insurance Company only.

¶31

The amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be released in favour of the claimants whereas the respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. shall satisfy the award and shall pay the same to the owners.

¶32

With the aforesaid, the F.A.F.O. No. 231 of 2001 is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

The lower court record shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned within a period of two weeks from today. "

¶34

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company vehemently opposed the appeal, but ultimately conceded the fact that the driver of the bus actually had the valid driving license.

¶35

Since the issue has already been decided earlier in F.A.F.O. No.231 of 2001 wherein it has been found that the bus driver has a valid license, hence there was no occasion to have taken contrary view in the connected matter. Accordingly, the instant F.A.F.O. No. 230 of 2001 is allowed to the extent that the bus owner cannot be asked to pay compensation on the contrary, it is the Insurance Company, who has to pay compensation.

¶36

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.194 of 2001

¶37

The F.A.F.O. No.194 of 2001 has been filed by legal heirs of the deceased seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

FAFO No. 230 of 2001

¶40

4

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased submits that Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has held that she is a housewife and is not earning anything. He has further relied on a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chhavinath Ram and others vs. Ram Sharan and others reported in [2018 (4) T.A.C. 490 (All.)] wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that even a lady is not earning anything, she is earning Rs.100/- per day.

¶42

On this, Shri S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondent bus owner submits that the ratio of aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case as this judgment was passed in the year 2018 and is not valid retrospectively, whereas the accident occurred on June 20, 1995 and the Claims Tribunal had passed the award on January 31, 2001. At that point of time, there was nothing on record to show that she was earning and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.

¶43

In view of the above, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was an earning member moreover, the ratio of the judgment of Chhavinath Ram (supra) sought by the appellants will not be applicable as the same is not to be treated with retrospective effect hence, the instant F.A.F.O. No.194 of 2001 has no force and is hereby dismissed .

¶44

November 7, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶45

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶46

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

Pradeep Kumar Singh v. Krishna Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Singh v. Krishna Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B.B.C. Brick Field Thru. Owner Sumitra Devi Jhikanaria Churu Rajasthan vs Deputy Commissioner Labor Dist. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Salik Ram and Others vs Rajendra and Others

Smt. Pooja Gautam vs Siddhant Bharti

Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Lalji Prasad Misra and Others

Gauri Shanker and Other Vs Ayodhya Prasad

Babu Ram Vs Anil Kumar