Smt. Malti Devi and 4 Others vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 296 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Malti Devi And 4 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mukesh Singh, Shrddha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Afzal Hasan

¶7

Court No. - 20

¶8

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

The instant FAFO has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the judgement dated 11.06.2025 passed in M.A.C.P. Case No. 108/70/2020 (Smt. Malti Devi Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others) by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, District Bahraich.

¶11

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Jagdamba aged about 35 years after loading the sugarcane seeds on the tractor was going from Nanpara towards Bahraich. The deceased was about to reach to Kishunpur Chauraha then tractor overturned and while he was collecting the sugarcane which fell on the ground because of overturning of the trolley. A Vehicle No. UP 46 T/0848 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and dashed into him. In this accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and on arriving the District Hospital he was declared dead.

¶12

The claim petition was filed by the family members of the deceased seeking compensation under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶13

The learned Tribunal after perusing the record framed the following issues.

¶14

FAFO No. 296 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

"1- क्या िदनाक 23-03-2020 को समय लगभग 09-00 बजे रात वहद स्थान िकशुनपुर चौराहा थाना मटेरा , िजला बहराइच मे जब मृतक जगदम्बा गन्ना का बीज लादकर ट्रैक्टर से नानपारा से बहराइच की तरफ जा रहा था , तभी गन्ना लदी ट्राली पलट गयी तथा गन्ना इकटठा करते समय बहराइच से नानपारा की तरफ जा रहे वाहन संख्या यू . पी .46 टी /0848 के चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही व उतावलेपन के साथ वाहन का संचालन करते हुए मृतक को गलत साइड में जाकर ठोकर मार िदया िजससे मृतक को गम्भीर रूप से घायल हो गया और उसकी मृत्यु हो गयी ?

¶17

2- क्या किथत दुघर्टना के समय वाहन संख्या यू . पी .46 टी /0848 के चालक के पास वैध एवं प्रभावी चालन लाइसेन्स था तथा वाहन के समस्त कागजात वैध व प्रभावी थे ?

¶18

3- क्या किथत दुघर्टना के समय वाहन संख्या यू . पी .46 टी /0848 िवपक्षी संख्या 1 बीमा कम्पनी से वैध व प्रभावी रूप से बीिमत थी तथा वाहन का संचालन बीमा शतोर्ं के अनुरूप िकया जा रहा था ?

¶19

4- क्या किथत दुघर्टना मृतक की योगदायी उपेक्षा व लापरवाही का पिरणाम है ?

¶20

5- क्या यािचका में पक्षकारो के असंयोजन का दोष है ?

¶21

6- क्या याचीगण क्षितपूित पाने का हकदार है , यिद हां , तो िकतनी और िकस िवपक्षी से ?"

¶22

The learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2025 rejected the claim petition of the claimants on the ground that the deceased while collecting the sugarcane had come on the road and the accident/death has taken place because of the negligence and carelessness of the deceased.

¶23

The order passed by the learned Tribunal has been assailed by means of the instant appeal.

¶24

Ms. Shraddha Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submits that the site plan clearly shows that the deceased was not sitting in the center of the road but was sitting at the side of the road, hence the claim could not have been rejected on the ground of 100% negligence of the deceased.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the findings arrived by the learned Tribunal that it could have been a dark place and the pick up van could not have seen the deceased is not correct.

¶26

FAFO No. 296 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the material present on record connects the chain of circumstances sufficiently, the evidence of the fact clearly establishes that deceased died due to injuries sustained in the vehicular accident occurred on the night of 23.03.2020 at around 09.00 P.M. at Kishanpur Chauraha, caused by the offending vehicle UP 46 T/0848 being driven in a rash and negligent manner. She further submits that no document or any kind of evidence has been produced by the respondent no.2 & 3 in support of the case.

¶29

She further submits that it is not a case where the negligence can be shouldered on the deceased.

¶30

Per contra, Sri Afzal Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3, submits that the deceased died because of overturning of the trolley and the number of the truck owned by the respondent has wrongly been introduced and they were implicated just to get the compensation.

¶31

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no written statements were filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 before the learned Tribunal with regard to their contention. Thus, the argument raised here is just an imagination at this point of time.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

There is nothing on record to support the contention of learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition disbelieving the documents filed by the appellants. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was sitting and collecting the sugarcane on the right side of the road when he was hit by the pick up van. The site plan filed along with the appeal clearly shows that the place of the accident was not on the centre of the road. The findings arrived by the learned Tribunal seem to be hyper technical. Even the findings of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was himself responsible for the death on account of his negligence also seems to be doubtful. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal require reconsideration.

¶34

Without going into the merits of the matter, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal concerned with direction to decide the matter afresh on the basis of evidence and documents on record.

¶35

FAFO No. 296 of 2025

¶36

4

¶37