Dismissed

Arun Kumar v. Anita & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2019FAO/4330/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench dismissed an appeal filed against the dismissal of a claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that the appellant contradicted himself by initially filing the claim against one person while criminal charges were framed against another, without any evidence to prove the driver's identity.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal against the Tribunal's order dismissing the claim petition is dismissed.

Arun Kumar Vs Anita & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

FAO No. 4330 of 2014 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 05. 12. 2019

Ar un Kumar Rai

…. . Appel l ant

ver sus

Smt . Ani t a and ot her s

¶7

. . . . . Respondent s

¶8

CORAM: - HON' BLE MRS. JUSTI CE ALKA SARI N

¶9

Pr esent : Mr . Vi r endr a Rana, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant Mr . Sur esh Kumar Yadav, Advocat e f or r espondent Nos. 1 t o 3

¶10

Mr . Vi pul , Advocat e f or Mr . Paul S. Sai ni , Advocat e f or r espondent No. 4

¶11

ALKA SARI N, J. :

¶12

The pr esent appeal has been f i l ed agai nst t he or der passed by t he Mot or Acci dent Cl ai ms Tr i bunal , Gur gaon dat ed 18. 02. 2014, wher eby t he cl ai m pet i t i on f i l ed by t he cl ai mant - appel l ant her ei n has been di smi ssed.

¶13

A br i ef mat r i x of t he case i s t hat i t was st at ed i n t he cl ai m pet i t i on t hat on 15. 01. 2011 at about 12. 15 P. M. t he appel l ant was par ki ng hi s mot or cycl e bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. HR- 26AG- 4519 i n f r ont of hi s r esi dence at 20/ 1A, Har i Nagar , Gur gaon, when a Tat a Saf ar i bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. HR- 26Y- 1484 came f r om t he opposi t e si de bei ng dr i ven by Mukesh Kumar Yadav ( si nce deceased) , now r epr esent ed by hi s l egal r epr esent at i ves, i n a r ash and negl i gent manner and hi t t he appel l ant di r ect l y. I t was cl ai med t hat due t o t he i mpact he f el l down and sust ai ned mul t i pl e i nj ur i es and al so suf f er ed f r act ur e on hi s r i ght ankl e. Respondent No. 1 Mukesh Kumar Yadav i s st at ed t o have f l ed f r om t he scene. Dr . Anshuman Madan, Consul t ant Or t hopaedi c Sur geon i s st at ed t o have at t ended t o t he

¶14

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.13 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

FAO- 4330- 2014

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

appel l ant at Gaut am Hospi t al , Gur gaon and pr epar ed Medi co- Legal Repor t No. 9, dat ed 15. 01. 2011. I t was f ur t her st at ed t hat si nce t he appel l ant her ei n was not i n a f i t condi t i on t o make a st at ement , t her ef or e, t he FI R No. 14, under sect i ons 279, 338 I PC was r egi st er ed at Pol i ce St at i on Kher ki Daul a, Gur gaon, on 16. 01. 2011. He pr ayed f or compensat i on t o t he t une of Rs. 2. 50 l akhs al ong wi t h i nt er est .

¶18

Not i ce of t he above pet i t i on was i ssued t o t he r espondent s. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, who was ar r ayed as r espondent No. 1, appear ed and f i l ed hi s wr i t t en st at ement wher ei n cont est ed t he cl ai m on conceal ment of t r ue and mat er i al f act s, non- j oi nder and mi s- j oi nder of necessar y par t i es. I t was al so cont ended t hat t he acci dent was not caused due t o t he r ash and negl i gent dr i vi ng of r espondent No. 1 ( Mukesh Kumar Yadav) . Dur i ng t he pendency of t he cl ai m pet i t i on, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, r espondent No. 1 her ei n, expi r ed and, t her eaf t er , hi s l egal r epr esent at i ves wer e i mpl eaded. Af t er t he deat h of Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Uday Shankar Yadav, r espondent No. 3 her ei n, was i mpl eaded as owner of t he of f endi ng vehi cl e and t he I nsur ance Company was i mpl eaded bei ng t he i nsur er of t he of f endi ng vehi cl e. The Tr i bunal , af t er t he consi der i ng t he evi dence l ed by t he par t i es, di smi ssed t he cl ai m pet i t i on. Hence, t he pr esent appeal .

¶19

I have hear d l ear ned counsel f or t he par t i es and am of t he consi der ed vi ew t hat t he appeal deser ves t o be di smi ssed f or t he f ol l owi ng r easons.

¶20

I n t he cl ai m pet i t i on, i t was t he speci f i c case of t he appel l ant her ei n t hat t he vehi cl e was bei ng dr i ven by Mukesh Kumar Yadav and, hence, i ni t i al l y, t he pet i t i on bef or e t he Tr i bunal was f i l ed agai nst Mukesh Kumar Yadav. I t has come on r ecor d i n t he

¶21

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.13 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

FAO- 4330- 2014

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

evi dence of RW1- Devender Yadav, who br ought t he summoned case f i l e of case t i t l ed: St at e vs. Uday Shanker ar i si ng out of FI R No. 14, dat ed 16. 01. 2011 under sect i ons 279, 338 I PC, Pol i ce St at i on Kher ki Daul a, Gur gaon, t hat t he char ges i n t he sai d case wer e f r amed agai nst t he accused Uday Shanker , son of Jagdi sh Yadav. He f ur t her deposed t hat as per r ecor d Mukesh Kumar Yadav was not an accused i n t he sai d case. The appel l ant , i n hi s af f i davi t , Ex. PW3/ A, speci f i cal l y st at ed t hat t he of f endi ng vehi cl e was bei ng dr i ven by Mukesh Kumar Yadav and t hat Mukesh Kumar Yadav was dr i vi ng t he of f endi ng vehi cl e i n a r ash and negl i gent manner . Ther e i s not a wor d qua Uday Shankar bei ng t he dr i ver of t he of f endi ng vehi cl e nor at any poi nt of t i me any appl i cat i on was ever moved by t he appel l ant t o amend t he pet i t i on bef or e t he Tr i bunal . A per usal of t he cl ai m pet i t i on and t he evi dence on r ecor d cl ear l y shows t hat t he t wo st ands t aken by t he appel l ant bef or e t he Tr i bunal and t he cr i mi nal cour t ar e t ot al l y cont r adi ct or y. I n f act , t her e i s not even an i ot a of evi dence on r ecor d t o subst ant i at e t he cl ai m t hat t he of f endi ng vehi cl e was bei ng dr i ven by Mukesh Kumar Yadav. Even bef or e t hi s Cour t , l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant has f ai l ed t o show any evi dence, whi ch was l ed by t he appel l ant , i n or der t o pr ove t he f act t hat t he vehi cl e was bei ng dr i ven by Mukesh Kumar Yadav ( deceased) .

¶25

I n vi ew of t he above di scussi on, I do not f i nd any mer i t i n t he pr esent appeal and, hence, t he same i s di smi ssed.

¶26

( ALKA SARI N) JUDGE

¶27

1. 2019 par kash

¶28

NOTE :
Whet her	speaki ng/	non- speaki ng: Speaki ng
Whet her	r epor t abl	e: YES/ NO

¶29

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.13 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

FAO- 4330- 2014

¶31

- 4 -

¶32

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.13 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Arun Kumar v. Anita & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. Anita & 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

Gurcharan Kaur Vs Nirvair Singh Chakal & Ors.

M/S Sandeep Rice Mills Vs Food Corporation of India

Tokh Ram and Ors. Vs Zile Singh Since Deceased through Lrs and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Chuhar Singh and Others

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Chamkaur Khan and Ors.

Meharban Singh and Ors. Vs Vikram Singh and Anr.