Partly allowed

Ajmer Mohd. v. Manmohan Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2013FAO/4033/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an appeal against the dismissal of a motor accident claim petition. The High Court held that the trial court was correct in finding the appellant negligent, evidenced by a concurrent criminal FIR and a separate successful claim filed by the deceased scooter driver's legal heir against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay of 24 days; dismissed the appeal lacking merits; disposed of pending applications if any.

Ajmer Mohd. Vs Manmohan Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

FAO No.4033 of 2013

¶3

Date of Decision : July 4, 2013.

¶4

Ajmer Mohammed ….Appellant. versus Manmohan Singh and others …Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶7

Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral)

¶8

CMPM No.857/2013

¶9

For the reasons set out in the application, which have been sufficiently explained, delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

¶10

FAO No.4033/2013

¶11

Claimant-appellant Ajmer Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed a petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation, on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident at Saiwala on 20.6.2008. According to the claimant, Truck bearing No.HP12-7491, driven by Manmohan Singh (respondent No.1

¶12

…2…

¶13

herein), came in a rash and negligent manner and hit Scooter No.HP17-4715, being driven by Bhim Singh. The Scooter in turn hit the motorcycle, being driven by the claimant, as a result of which he fell down and suffered multiple injuries. Accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1.

¶14

Significantly, in the said accident, owner and driver of the scooter, i.e. Bhim Singh died. As such, claimant claimed compensation of a sum of `5,00,000/from the owner and driver of truck, the insurer thereof as also legal heir of the owner of the scooter.

¶15

Tribunal below framed the following issues:

¶16

“1. Whether the petitioner Ajmer Mohd. Had received injuries on his person due to rash or negligent driving of truck No.HP-127491 by respondent No.1 on 20-6-2008 at about 2.45 p.m. at Majra, as alleged? OPP

¶17

In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?

¶18

…OPP

¶19

1. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? …OPR-1

¶20

Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Tribunal, as alleged? …OPR-1

¶21

Whether the petitioner has not come with clean hands, as alleged? …OPR-1

¶22

Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of owner/driver and insurance company of truck No.HP-12-7491, as alleged?

¶23

...OPR-1&2

¶24

Whether the driver of the truck did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and the truck was being plied

¶25

…3…

¶26

without permit in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? …OPR-2

¶27

Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1, as alleged? …OPRR-2

¶28

Relief.”

¶29

The petition stands dismissed.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record so made available in Court, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal.

¶31

In the petition, claimant did not correctly describe the occurrence of the incident, as it took place on the spot.

¶32

Based on the evidence so led by the parties, it stands established that the cause of accident was not the negligence of respondent No.1.

¶33

It be also noticed that claimant himself admits that FIR, in relation to the very same accident, in which, prima facie, he is found to have committed the crime, stands registered against him.

¶34

Also, legal heir of deceased Bhim Singh (respondent No.3 herein) had instituted a claim petition, seeking compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the present claimant. Statements of the witnesses recorded in the said petition, were placed on

¶35

…4…

¶36

record of the instant case and proved in accordance with law. Negligence of the claimant stands established. Quite apparently, claimant has filed the claim petition only to avoid adjudication of claims of the present respondent No.3 and avoid execution of award, which may be eventually passed against the present claimant.

¶37

For the foregoing reasons, appeal, devoid of merits, is dismissed.

¶38

Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶39

( Sanjay Karol ), July, 4, 2013(sd) Judge.

Ajmer Mohd. v. Manmohan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Mohd. v. Manmohan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Kumar Vs State

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India

Prem Chand Vs State

Bhawana Sharma Vs Shrikant Baldi

Shiv Mandir and Shiv Bari Vs State

Vinod Kumar Vs State