Disposed¶15

Rakesh Kumar and Another v. Meharban Singh Pal and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025FAFO/2779/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC, FAO 2779/2025, Sandeep Jain J, 04.12.2025; S.173 MV Act 1988 claimants' enhancement-of-compensation appeal (Rakesh Kumar & another v Meharban Singh Pal & 3 others) against MACT Kanpur Nagar award 16.09.2025 (MACP 735/2015) rejecting claim for death of Anurag Valmiki, accident 15.05.2015, on failure to prove factum of accident; charge sheet against offending-vehicle driver urged as proof; appeal admitted, notice ordered, lower court record summoned, list after 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; notice ordered to the respondents (steps by both ways within a week); office directed to summon the lower court record; matter to be listed after eight weeks. ¶15

Rakesh Kumar and Another vs Meharban Singh Pal and 3… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2779 of 2025

¶3

Rakesh Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Meharban Singh Pal And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akshay	Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 38

¶10

HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶12

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 735 of 2015 (Rakesh Kumar & another vs Meharbaan Singh & others) whereby the claim petition for compensation for the untimely death of Anurag Valmiki in a motor accident that occurred on 15.05.2015 has been rejected on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the factum of accident.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was sufficient evidence available on record of the tribunal to prove that the accident was indeed caused by the offending vehicle. It was further submitted that in the criminal case after investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle which is ignored by the tribunal, which is erroneous.

¶14