Allahabad High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Suman And Ors. on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 462 of 2014
Appellant :- The National Insurance Company Ltd.Throu Regional Manager
Respondent :- Smt. Suman And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- S. Banerji
Counsel for Respondent :- D.K. Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
By the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 18.2.2014 passed in Claim Petition No. 188 of 2010 (Smt. Suman and others Vs. Pankaj Tiwari and others).
The facts of the case as narrated are that the incident took place on 16.6.2010 and an F.I.R. was lodged on 17.6.2010 against the number of vehicle which caused the incident. The court below, after considering the evidence, granted the award in favour of the claimants no.1,2 & 3.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the manner in which the incident is shown to have occurred raises a serious doubt. He further submits that it has come in the statement of PW-1/wife of the deceased Sanjay that she was walking just behind the deceased. It is surprising that the vehicle which has hit the deceased from his back did not cause any injury to his wife who was walking just behind him. The Court has read the statement of Smt. Suman, wife of the deceased Sanjay along with the counsel for the appellant. No suggestion was given to Smt. Suman in the cross-examination as to why she was not injured in the incident. Had the Insurance Company put such a question to her in the cross-examination, she would have given a proper reply to the same and explained the situation. Without raising such a question to the concerned witness, it is not open to the counsel for the Insurance Company to make the aforesaid submission now at the appellate stage. There is no basis of such argument made in the evidence filed. Even otherwise, it is very much possible that while hitting from behind the vehicle causes injury to one person and not other person, therefore, even otherwise the Court is not impressed by this half baked submission made by the counsel for the appellant.
The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that it was fully proved on record, from the bilty of the vehicle and the statement of the Manager of the Transport Company, that the vehicle had left the transport company at 12.30 PM for Ghaziabad and was not in Hardoi.
The Court below has considered the said aspect of the matter at length and it has found that the owner of the vehicle has also stated that movement of the vehicle is noted in the Log Book. The said Log Book was not brought on record. The Court below has also considered the statement of the Manager of the Transport Company as well as the bilty. Admittedly, the bilty does not contain any time with regard to movement of the vehicle. The Manager of the Transport Company has only stated that after leaving the transport company, he is not aware with regard to the movement of the vehicle.
Therefore, the Court below has come to the conclusion that it could not be proved that at the relevant time the vehicle was at some other place and was not at the place of accident. There is no illegality in the said finding also
No other submission has been made on behalf of the appellant.
I do not find any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award.
The appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
The decreetal amount shall be released in favour of the claimants forthwith.
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
Order Date :- 11.4.2022
Arjun/-
