Mana Mishra vs Smt. Suneeta Jaiswal And Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1185 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 818 of 2017
 
Appellant :- Mana Mishra
 
Respondent :- Smt. Suneeta Jaiswal And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vyas Narayan Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Maurya,Vikram Soni
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad holding brief for Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 as well as Sri Vikram Soni, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.9.

This F.A.F.O filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has assailed the judgment and order dated 24.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.No.09/2015( Smt. Suneeta Jaiswal & Ors. vs. Mana Mishra & Ors.). The appeal has been filed by the owner of tractor bearing no. U.P.35U/0270.

Admittedly, the accident took place due to a head on collusion of two motor vehicles bearing no.U.P.35U/0270 and U.P-33AT/1026 on 23.12.2014 at 6.00 p.m in the evening.

The Tribunal after adjudication of the issues involved in the claim petition in the light of evidence available on record has fixed the entire liability to pay upon the appellant who is the owner of the tractor. The liability to pay was fixed upon the appellant due to the reason that the tractor involved in the accident was not insured, whereas, the other vehicle i.e. Tempo bearing no. U.P-33AT/1026 which was duly insured was not found to have been driven negligently as per the stand adopted by the claimants.

A short point urged before this Court by the appellant is on the aspect of contributory negligence. The appellant in support of the ground urged before this Court has not been able to place any evidence whatsoever which may have skipped the attention of the tribunal to fix proportionate liability upon the driver of other colliding vehicle i.e. tempo bearing no. U.P-33AT/1026.

The Tribunal while adjudicating upon the issue of contributory negligence has duly addressed to the evidence led by the claimant which includes the oral testimony of P.W.-2 i.e. eye witness as well as the site plan corroborating the evidence of the eye witness i.e. P.W.2.

The appellant has failed to produce any evidence oral or documentary. He even could not adduce the evidence of the tractor driver may be for the reason that he died during pendency of the claim. In any case, the evidence led by the claimants on cross examination by the appellant has not fished out any doubt on the basis of which the credence of the evidence produced in the claimants may be doubted.

The finding recorded by the tribunal of exclusive negligence on the part of the tractor driver in these circumstances cannot be doubted. The findings recorded by the tribunal having regard to the material available on record deserve to be affirmed. It is ordered accordingly.

No other ground has been argued before this Court in support of the appeal. The appeal bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.

The appellant has not complied with the award till date except the deposit of statutory amount before this Court. The statutory amount deposited before this court may be remitted to Tribunal for release in favour of the claimants. The execution proceedings initiated, if any, may proceed in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 20.1.2021

Shahnaz