Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar Talreja v. Smt Vidhyanti Devi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC20 Sept 2019MA/493/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the single-judge Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal against an award of compensation. The Court held that the appellant failed to produce evidence to contradict the FIR and Tribunal findings that the appellant's auto rickshaw caused the accident. The challenge based on an uncorroborated Right to Information document was rejected, and the ap

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant was directed to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimants along with interest as per the Tribunal's order.

Neeraj Kumar Talreja Vs Smt Vidhyanti Devi And Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPELLATE JURISDICTION MA No. 493 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Neeraj Talreja @ Neeraj Kumar Talreja ...............Appellant Versus

¶5

Smt. Vidhyanti Devi

¶6

Anup Kumar

¶7

Preeti Kumari

¶8

Rajeev Kumar Tiwari @ Rajeev Tiwary

¶9

...............Respondents

¶10

......

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶12

For Appellant: Mr. Hemant Shikarwar, Advocate Mr. Hariom Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶13

For Respondents:

¶14

.......

¶15

05/20.09.2019 This appeal has been preferred by the owner of the offending auto rickshaw bearing registration no. UP-32CN-5364.

¶16

2. The appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 05.05.2017 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 87/12 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby the appellant has been saddled with compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,25,032/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 21.03.2012 till its realization.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly given finding that deceased has met accident with the auto ricksaw of the appellant rather the information obtained by the appellant under the right to information act suggests that deceased Mithilesh Kumar Rai met with an accident from a motorcycle as appears from statement of Subedar Shankar Singh who brought him for treatment. Since Subedar Shankar Singh did not appear before the court, as such, his address and mobile number could not be obtained. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in that view of the matter, the appellant has been wrongly made liable for compensation amount as the deceased Mithilesh Kumar Rai has sustained motor vehicle accident from motorcycle and not from the auto rickshaw of the appellant, as such, the impugned order may be set aside.

¶18

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials brought on record. From perusal of the record, it appears that except the information obtained under the right to information act, nothing has been brought on record.

¶19

¶20

Even in the written statement this fact has been mentioned but to that effect no evidence has been brought on record except that appellant has denied involvement of his auto rickshaw in the alleged offence. From perusal of the evidence brought on record, it appears that an F.I.R. has been lodged at Mohanlalganj Police Station in the district of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh bearing no. 496/2010 stating therein that accident has been made by auto rickshaw/tempo in which husband of the claimant sustained injuries. The registration no. of the auto rickshaw has been mentioned as UP-32CN-5364. Nothing has been brought by the appellant in cross-examination to disbelieve the case of the claimants. The consistent evidence brought on record suggests that the vehicle of the appellant bearing registration no. UP-32CN-5364 is the vehicle which has caused injuries to Mithilesh Kumar Rai who succumbed to the injuries. The document which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 before this Court has not been brought before the learned Tribunal. 5. The appellant has not laid any evidence to disbelieve the case of the claimant rather exhibit-1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. of Mohanlalganj (Lucknow) Crime No. 496/10 dated 26.7.2010, which has been instituted against the driver of the tempo bearing registration no. UP-32CN-5364 for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC and after investigation the driver of the offending vehicle Rajeev Tiwari has been chargesheeted by the police vide chargesheet no. 379/10 dated 19.09.2010 under sections 279, 337, 427 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The certified copy of post-mortem report has been brought on record as Exhibit-3. The certificate of registration of the offending tempo standing in the name of the appellant Neeraj Talreja has been brought on record as Exhibit-4, the photocopy of the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle has been brought as Exhibit-5, the driving licence of Rajeev Kumar Tiwari has been brought on record as Exhibit-6, the salary certificate of the deceased has been brought on record as Exhibit-7, the certified copy of the bail petition filed by accused driver Rajeev Kumar Tiwari has been brought on record as Exhibit-8, certified copy of the order dated 18.09.2010 granting bail to the accused Rajeev Kumar Tiwari has been brought on record as Exhibit-9, certified copy of the petition filed by O.P. No. 1 Neeraj Talreja @ Neeraj Kumar Talreja for release of his vehicle tempo bearing registration no. UP-32CN-5364 involved in accident has been brought on record as Exhibit-10, the certified copy of order dated 20.09.2010 regarding release of the offending vehicle UP-32CN-5364 in favour of Neeraj Talreja has been brought on record as Exhibit-11. All these documents

¶21

¶22

mentioned above are sufficient to show that the vehicle of the appellant is the offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-32CN-5364 and as such, this Court in absence of any evidence cannot look into such plea made by the appellant which is contrary to the record.

¶23

6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, since learned counsel for the appellant has failed to establish any irregularity committed by the learned Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

¶25

8. Appellant is directed to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimants along with interest in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶26

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶27

pallavi/

Neeraj Kumar Talreja v. Smt Vidhyanti Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar Talreja v. Smt Vidhyanti Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Thr Its Branch Manager Purnendu Chatterjee Vs Sharda Devi and Ors.

Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jolen Sanga

The New India Assurance Company Limited Reprr Thr Its Divisional Office No 1 Vs Joginder Singh Jassal

Krishna Devi Vs Lakhan Lal Daluka And Anr.

Jitendra Kumar Pandey Vs Ravi Kumar Vishwakarma And Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Assistant Manager Vs Pramila Prasad