Dismissed

Chandra Mohan Bhatt v. Chandra Mohan Kharakwal

Uttarakhand HC1 Dec 2021AO/253/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals were filed challenging orders dismissing motor accident claims. The single judge held there was no material on record to prove the deceased died in a motor accident due to lack of death certificate, FIR, and uncorroborated post mortem report. The appeals were dismissed as the trial court's finding was not a patent misappreciation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

All appeals filed by legal heirs and injured persons were dismissed. Trial court records ordered to be sent back.

Chandra Mohan Bhatt Vs Chandra Mohan Kharakwal — Motor Accident Claims | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

Appeal From Order No. 253 of 2008

¶4

Chandra Mohan Bhatt ……….Appellant -VersusChandra Mohan Kharakwal & Ors. .......Respondents

¶5

With

¶6

Appeal From Order No. 242 of 2008

¶7

Virendra Prasad ……….Appellant -VersusChandra Mohan Kharakwal & Ors. .......Respondents

¶8

With

¶9

Appeal From Order No. 245 of 2008

¶10

Sarita Devi Ghildiyal ……….Appellant -Versus-

¶11

Chandra Mohan Kharakwal & Ors. .......Respondents

¶12

With

¶13

Appeal From Order No. 246 of 2008

¶14

Km. Sakshi ……….Appellant -VersusChandra Mohan Kharakwal & Ors. .......Respondents

¶15

Present:

¶16

Mr. Deepak Rawat, the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶17

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

¶18

Date of hearing and order

¶19

01.12.2021

¶20

Page No. 1 of 5

¶21

1. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 07.03.2008, passed by learned Judge, MACT, Pauri Garhwal in different motor accident claim cases. AO No. 253 of 2008 has been filed by the legal heir of the deceased while the other three appeals i.e. AO No. 242 of 2008, AO No. 245 of 2008 and AO No. 246 of 2008 have been preferred by the injured.

¶22

2. Heard Mr. Deepak Rawat, the learned counsel for the appellant (in all appeals) and Mr. M.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶23

3. The legal heir of the deceased filed the claim application, inter alia, averring that on 13.09.2003, the deceased was travelling from Pauri to Srinagar in bus bearing no. UP06-5850; at about 2:30 p.m., near Margadna, the vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver as a result of which deceased died; at the time of death, deceased was 56 years old and was working in the Department of Education as a Head Mistress. She was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month as salary. Hence, the claim petition.

¶24

4. The written submissions were filed by the Insurance Company as well as by the owner of the vehicle denying the allegations on such pleas raised by the parties. Five issues were cast. Issue no. 1 is important. The Tribunal addressed itself to decide whether on 13.09.2003 at about 2 p.m., near

¶25

Page No. 2 of 5

¶26

Margadna on the Pauri-Srinagar motor road, the bus bearing no. UP06-5850, met with an accident as a result of which the deceased Dhuppi Devi sustained grievous injury and later on died. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in this case the petitioner is unable to prove that the death of the deceased was as a result of motor vehicle accident as put forth by the claimant at paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. He has reflected that no death certificate has been preferred by the petitioner. No FIR or police report has been lodged in respect to the accident that allegedly took place on that day. Xerox copy of post mortem report has been filed in which name of the deceased is not readable, from which it cannot be inferred that post mortem report related to the deceased Dhuppi Devi. No independent witness was examined on behalf of the claimant who could have stated before the Tribunal that in actuality the deceased was travelling in bus. The post mortem report also does not reflect that the death of deceased was caused by a motor vehicle accident.

¶27

5. This matter was heard on 22.10.2021 and the Court specifically asked Mr. Deepak Rawat, the learned counsel for the appellant to bring to our notice any semblance of evidence connecting the death of the deceased with the accident that has been allegedly taken place.

¶28

6. Learned counsel for the appellant today fairly submits that he does not have any other material over

¶29

Page No. 3 of 5

¶30

and above what has been led by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the materials available is not sufficient to hold that the death of the deceased was due to the motor accident. He further submits that the Xerox copy of the post mortem report that has been filed before the Tribunal can also be taken into consideration.

¶31

7. It is apparent from the record that post mortem report also does not reveal that the death of the deceased was in fact because of a motor vehicle accident.

¶32

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that absolutely there is no material on record to show that the deceased died in a motor accident, and, therefore, order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act does not appear to be incorrect. Moreover, the trial court or court of original jurisdiction has the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and in doing so he comes to the conclusion which is based on his no best commonsense and trained intuition. In such cases, the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the findings recorded by the original court unless grave or patent misappreciation of evidence is shown to the appellate court.

¶33

Page No. 4 of 5

¶34

9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal. AO No. 253 of 2008, is, therefore, dismissed.

¶35

10. The other three connected appeals are the injury cases where no injury report is filed which make the case more weaker for the appellants and for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph while dealing AO No. 253 of 2008, this Court is of the view, there is no merit in these appeals and all the appeals, are, therefore, dismissed.

¶36

11. Trial court records be sent back.

¶37

12. Urgent certified copies of this order be provided as per rules.

(S.K. Mishra)

Judge

Page No. 5 of 5

Chandra Mohan Bhatt v. Chandra Mohan Kharakwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Mohan Bhatt v. Chandra Mohan Kharakwal

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

Shankar Datt Vs State Government through District Collector Almora

Karam Pal Singh Vs Ajab Singh

Jai Prakash and Sons Vs Central Public Works Department

M/S Jyothy Laboratories Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun

Ashwini Kumar Rana Vs Vinita Devi

Shilpa Aggarwal Vs Raghvendra Tiwari