Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Suganti Devi And 4 Others on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 408 of 2021
Appellant :- National Insurance Company Limited
Respondent :- Suganti Devi And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Radhey Shyam
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant through video conferencing.
The instant appeal arises from judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal')/Additional District Judge, Room No. 1, Deoria, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 90 of 2015, awarding Rs. 6,41,200/- towards compensation and simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition.
The facts giving rise to the instant appeal, briefly stated, is that a claim petition came to be filed by the legal heirs of the deceased (Nandlal Kumar Gupta) claiming compensation at Rs. 3,08,26,400/-. The appellant/insurance company contested the appeal by filing written statement, inter alia, denying the factum of the accident. The case set up by the respondent/claimant is that on 20 February 2015, at about 7.20 in the morning, the deceased along with his uncle (chacha) on motorcycle (U.P. 52 S 3224) was proceeding on the left side of the road. On reaching veterinary clinic, the motorcycle was hit by another motorcycle (UP 52 Y 8954) coming from the opposite direction being driven rash and negligently. Consequently, the deceased received serious injuries. The deceased was taken to primary health centre, Bankata, the doctor referred him to the District Hospital, Deoria. The doctors at district hospital declared him dead. It is further pleaded that the motorcycle of the deceased was hit from the right side due to the rash and negligent driving. Accordingly, compensation was claimed by the respondent/claimants.
In response to the claim petition, the appellant/insurance company had taken several grounds, inter alia, stating that the claimants do not have cause of action; the deceased was not engaged as engineer in foreign country; the age of the deceased is not supported by any documentary evidence; no accident took place as alleged; the manner in which the accident took place is not supported by the site plan; it is not a case of head on collision of the respective motorcycle but the motorcycle was hit on the right side, which is, improbable.
Learned trial court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether on 20.02.2015 around 7:20 a.m., when Nandlal Kumar Gupta was riding his uncle's motorcycle no.UP52 S-3224 and was on the left side while going to Bankata, and as he reached the Veterinary Hospital in east of Bhudwar, the driver of motorcycle no.UP52 Y-8954 driving rashly & negligently came from the opposite direction and moved rightwards & collided with his motorcycle, due to which Nandlal Kumar Gupta sustained grievous injuries and died during course of treatment due to said injuries?
2. Whether the driver of motorcycle in question No.UP52 Y-8954, was not in possession of valid & effective driving licence at time of the accident?
3. Whether the motorcycle in question bearing no.- No.UP52 Y-8954 was not insured by opposite party no.2 at time of the accident?
4. Whether the petition suffers from defect of non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation? If yes, then from whom and how much?"
Issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were decided in favour of the claimants; issue no. 4 was decided against the insurance company.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed sole ground that the factum of the accident is doubtful; there is contradiction in the statement of P.W. 2 (Hareram) and the averments made in the claim petition; P.W. 2 being the sole eye witness of the accident could not tell the number of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding. It is further contended that the accident as alleged is doubtful as the collision of the two motorcycle, as per site plan is headon, whereas, in the claim petition it was stated that the motorcycle was hit from the right side. It is further urged that P.W.-2 stated that the deceased was driving the motorcycle, whereas, it is pleaded that the deceased along with his uncle was on the motorcycle and after the accident uncle had received minor injury.
In nutshell, the submission being pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the factum of the accident and the vehicle involved in the accident is doubtful. The accident had never taken place.
Learned Tribunal while deciding issue no. 1 noted the registration numbers of the vehicle involved in the accident; First Information Report came to be lodged after 10 days of the accident; the delay was duly explained. The eye witness (P.W.-2) had shown the spot of accident to the investigating officer. In the cross examination, P.W.-2 clearly stated that the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the right side as the motorcycle was driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal, further noted that in the cross examination of P.W.-2 the appellant/insurance company failed to substantiate that P.W.-2 is not the eye witness; and that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident. Mere discrepancy in the statement and pleadings which does not go to the root of the matter would not mean that the deceased did not succumb to injury caused in the accident. There is no reason to doubt the eye witnesses account that the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding was hit on the right side. the site plan merely shows the direction of the two motorcycles. The spot of accident was also pointed out by P.W.-2. It is further noted that charge sheet was filed against the driver of the alleged motorcycle.
Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
It is clarified that no other ground was pressed.
No Cost.
Order Date :- 29.6.2021
K.K. Maurya
