Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Manager vs Rajkumar Goswami and 6 Others

Instant FAFO has been filed by the opposite party no.4 in Claim Petition No.402 of 2018, assailing the judgment and order dated 10/07/2025, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, whereby a sum of Rs.6,18,600/- has been awarded as death claim compensation against opposite party no.4/ Oriental Insurance Company Limited i.e. the present appellant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial court had decided the issues settled on the basis of the evidence of the parties in a perfunctory manner, without taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties in totality. There are contradictory statements by witnesses in respect of the alleged accident. There is no plausible evidence in support of the allegation that the vehicle was being driven at the time incident in rash and negligent manner. He next submitted that the P.W.-2 has been projected as an eyewitness of the incident, but it is evident from his evidence that he has not seen the incident as such. The

¶14

FAFO No. 416 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

claimant cannot be treated as a dependence of the deceased as the deceased was aged about 60 years, whereas the claimants, who are sons of the deceased, are aged around 22 to 40 years; they are able bodied person and in no manner can be said to be dependent of their elderly father. Appellant is entitled to challenge the award on the grounds which are available to the owner of the vehicle in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Sheela Gupta and others, AIR 2012 SC 86 . She next submitted that the judgment and award dated 10/07/2025 passed by learned Tribunal is patently erroneous, and an outcome of misappreciation of evidence. The findings of fact recorded on Issue no.1 are perverse and against the strength of evidence for oral and documentary. Inasmuch as, no compliance provisions under Section 158 (6) MV Act has been made by the police. Findings recorded on Issue no.5 are also erroneous. Claimants, being major and earning sons of the deceased, cannot be treated as dependent. The award is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Admit.

¶18

Issue notice to respondents no. 1 to 7, which shall be served through the District Judge concerned.

¶19

Steps be filed within a week.

¶20

List this case on 25.11.2025.

¶21

In case, the applicant deposits the entire awarded amount before the Tribunal within a month, the recovery proceeding shall remain stayed during pendency of present appeal. On deposit of the award amount without any interest, the respondents will be entitled to seek refund half of the awarded amount deposited before the court on application filed by

¶22

FAFO No. 416 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

them before the Tribunal. The statutory amount already deposited before the Tribunal by the applicant shall liable to be adjusted towards the amount which is to be deposited before Tribunal pursuant to the present order. Half of decretal amount shall be invested by MACT in a Fixed Deposit Scheme in a Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year which shall be renewed from year to year, in case the appeal remains pending before this Court.

¶25

Respondents may move an application for refund of the amount deposited on filing of indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

¶26

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶27

October 15, 2025 KR

¶28

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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Manager v. Rajkumar Goswami and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Manager v. Rajkumar Goswami and 6 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mansi Sharma and Another vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Thru. Auth. Representative

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Thru. Auth. Representative Shivani Srivastava vs Paul Singh

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Thru. Auth. Representative Shivani Srivastava vs Sonia Tokas

Shripal vs U.O.I. Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi

Seema Tiwari Thru. Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Brijendra Kumar Sharma vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Housing Commissioner Lko. vs Kusum Lata Dixit