Disposed¶16

Sohanlal v. Anas Iqbql and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2026FAFO/125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAFO 125 of 2025, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Prashant Kumar J; appeal under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 against MACT Sultanpur award dated 06.09.2024 in M.A.C.P. No.268 of 2020; claim rejected for absence of PHC admission/treatment documents; referral to Sitapur Hospital; head ticket alcoholism allegation without test; medicines receipts not considered; appeal admitted, trial court records summoned, listed 27.07.2026; counsel Krishan Kumar/Krishna Kumar; respondents Anas Iqbql and 2 others unrepresented on record.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; trial court records summoned; steps to be taken within a week; appeal listed for hearing on 27.07.2026. No merits adjudicated at this stage. ¶16

Sohanlal vs Anas Iqbql and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 125 of 2025

Sohanlal

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Anas Iqbql And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Krishan Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in M.A.C.P. No.268 of 2020.

¶13

Sri Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim of the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the claimant has not filed any document to show that he was admitted in the Primary Health Center. He further submits that as soon as he was brought to the Primary Health Center, he was referred to Sitapur Hospital and, hence, there was no document made by the P.H.C. He further submits that head ticket shows the appellant to be alcoholic, however no test was conducted.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal further rejected the claim on the ground that claimant has failed to produce any document about his treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant had filed all the receipts towards purchase of medicines and the same have not been considered.

¶15