Smt. Shakuntala Devi And Others vs National Insurance Company Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22045 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164973
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1136 of 1998
 
Appellant :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi And Others
 
Respondent :- National Insurance Company Ltd. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Porwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan,Satyendra Vishwakarma
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-owner. None has appeared for respondent-Insurance Company.

2. By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 5.9.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIth Additional District Judge, Etawah in M.A.C. No. 7 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the appellant-claimants.

3. Can claim in this beneficial piece of legislation i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be dismissed on surmises and conjectures which are not even pleaded by the parties? The answer would be in negative. The F.I.R. goes to show that the tractor dashed the deceased from behind. The charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the tractor. There was no breach of policy condition. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition assuming that in India people try to catch a running tractor and that is how the deceased might have come under the tractor. This is nothing else but a perverse finding. It is not even finding, it is a surmise of the Tribunal where it has not even shown mercy to the bereaved family members who have categorically mentioned that tractor came from behind and dashed the deceased who died in the said accident. The charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the tractor. It is not the case of the owner/driver of the tractor that vehicle was not involved and/or the deceased was trying to catch hold of the running tractor.

4. The above surmise cannot stand scrutiny of this Court in view of the abundant evidence on record. Hence, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The matter to go back to the Tribunal as Insurance Company is not before this Court. The owner is represented by learned Advocate who has tried to defend the impugned judgment however the said defence cannot be accepted.

5. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. Record be sent back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the issue of compensation within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 16.8.2023

DKS