Allahabad High Court
Sushila Devi And Another vs Sarswati Shishu Mandir Deoria on 7 May, 2024
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81506
Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 830 of 1996
Appellant :- Sushila Devi And Another
Respondent :- Sarswati Shishu Mandir Deoria
Counsel for Appellant :- Vashishtha Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- B.R.Tripathi,Anil Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for claimants-appellants and perused the record. No one is present for the opposite party despite sufficient service.
This FAFO has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 26.7.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria in MAC No. 275 of 1990 (Sushila Devi and another vs. Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Deoria), by which claim petition filed by claimants was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the accident was occurred on 23.8.1990 at 4 P.M., in which daughter of claimants namely Vishruti aged 4 years had received serious injuries and died on account of injuries sustained by her. The accident was caused by driver of offending school bus, which was driven by its driver very rashly and negligently. The Investigating Officer, after due investigation, had submitted charge-sheet against the driver of offending mini bus. The opposite party had contested the claim petition denying ownership of mini bus bearing No. UP Q-5494 as also involvement of said mini bus in the accident. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no. 2 has recorded the finding that the opposite party is owner of said mini bus. It is further submitted that claimant No.1 appeared as P.W.-1 before the Claims Tribunal and has proved the involvement of offending mini bus in the accident. The claimants had also produced one Ramanand Shastri as P.W.-2 who was an eye witness of the accident and he also proved the involvement of school bus in the accident as well as rash and negligent driving of driver of offending bus. The presence of eye-witness P.W.-2 at the place of accident is fully established, as he brought the deceased to the hospital. The Claims Tribunal has recorded perverse finding of fact that claimants have failed to prove rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending mini bus.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The record shows that the claimants have produced one eye-witness Ramanand Shastri before the Tribunal who has stated on oath that the accident was caused by the offending minibus which was driven by its driver very rashly and negligently. The school bus was caught just after the accident from the place of accident and was released in favour of opposite party by the Court. The investigating Officer has also submitted charge sheet against the driver of school bus. The Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition on hyper-technical reasons.
The First Appeal From Order is allowed and judgment and order dated 26.7.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal who shall decide the claim petition afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Office is directed to transmit the record of the concerned Claims Tribunal immediately to the Claims Tribunal, Deoria.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
P.P.
