Allahabad High Court
H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance ... vs Sunil Kumar And 2 Others on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 34 of 2018
Appellant :- H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Sunil Kumar And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
List has been revised. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is present. No one is present on behalf of respondents.
This first appeal from orders has been filed by appellant-insurance company against the judgment and award dated 19.09.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad, in M.A.C.P. No. 107 of 2014 (Sunil Kumar vs. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and two others), by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent was partly allowed and compensations of Rs. 78,400/- along with 7% interest has been awarded to the claimant-respondent on account of injuries received by him in a road accident, which was occurred on 03.07.2013.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident was not proved and it is a case of false implication of the insured vehicle. It is further submitted that the first information report was lodged against the insured vehicle, whereas, the Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted final report to the effect that the insured vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Record shows that the claimant-respondent no. 1 namely Sunil Kumar himself was appeared as PW-1 and had also produced eye witness namely Akhilesh as PW-2 and both the eye witnesses had stated that the injured were travelling in UP 83 T 2066 which was dashed from behind by the insured vehicle bearing no. DL 3 CBV 7066 and the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle.
The Claims Tribunal while deciding issues nos. 1, 2 and 3 has recorded the finding that the driver of the insured vehicle was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident and the finding recorded by Clams Tribunal in respect of rash and negligent driving of driver of the insured vehicle is based on material evidence available on record and hence, there is no perversity in the impugned order.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs. 73,400/- for medical expenses, which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner.
In view of above, no grounds of interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- shall be remitted to the claims Tribunal for adjustment to the amount deposited by the appellant.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022
sailesh
