Hari Kishore And Ors. vs Smt. Vimla Devi And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9835 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Hari Kishore And Ors. vs Smt. Vimla Devi And Ors. on 29 April, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24539
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 111 of 2011
 

 
Appellant :- Hari Kishore And Ors.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Vimla Devi And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiva Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- D.K. Singh Somvanshi,Abhishek Singh,Shashank Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri D.K. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Lakhimpur Kheri (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.183 of 2003 in Re: Smt. Vimla Devi and Others vs. Ramadhaar through his legal heirs, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum Rs.1,68,500/- to the claimants along with 6% interest.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an accident is said to have occurred on 14.05.2003 at 09:00 P.M. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the rider of the motorcycle namely Shri Ramesh Singh died on the spot. His nephew namely Shri Arvind Kumar, who was the pillion rider, suffered minor injuries.

4. An F.I.R. had been lodged on 26.05.2003 at 14:45 hours in which it has been indicated that Shri Ramesh Singh had died and Shri Satish Kumar, brother of the deceased, was riding rear on the vehicle, suffered minor injuries.

5. In the claim petition, the defendants / appellants put in appearance and refuted the accident and also pointed out the inconsistencies made in the claim petition vis-a-vis the F.I.R. that has been lodged, which were that (a) in the claim petition, it had been indicated that the deceased was accompanied by his nephew namely Arvind Kumar while in the F.I.R. it has been indicated that the deceased was accompanied by his brother namely Satish Kumar; (b) the motorcycle number, as indicated in the claim petition, was different from the one indicated in the evidence. Apart from the aforesaid, certain other inconsistencies were also pointed out.

6. It is contended that the learned Tribunal without appreciating the correct facts, by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2010, has awarded the aforesaid amount and hence, the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued on the inconsistencies in the judgment as indicated namely-

(a) that in the claim petition, it had been indicated that the deceased was accompanied by his nephew namely Arvind Kumar while in the F.I.R. it has been indicated that the deceased was accompanied by his brother namely Satish Kumar;

(b) that the motorcycle number, as indicated in the claim petition, was different from that as indicated in the evidence led by claimants;

(c) that in the evidence, as led by the claimant, it has been indicated that the driver of the tractor involved in the accident had been caught while in the criminal case, that had been lodged against the driver of the vehicle i.e. appellant No.4 herein, it has been indicated that he was never caught rather he had surrendered on 02.06.2003;

(d) that in paragraph 3.1.1 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has made contradictory observations namely in one part, it has been indicated that when there was an accident, the witnesses found the tractor standing in the middle of the road while in the other part, it has been indicated that the tractor was driven away from the spot;

(e) that in the evidence of the brother of the deceased namely Shri Umesh, it has been indicated that when he reached on the spot, the accident had already taken place and the tractor was standing on the road and the driver had been caught, which is a contradiction which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while delivering the aforesaid judgment.

8. Reliance has also been placed on the evidence of the Defense Witness- 1 wherein it has been indicated that on the fateful day i.e. 09.12.2010, the tractor along with trolley was in the process of delivering the sugarcane at the factory and was standing in the line at 08:00 P.M. and had been weighed in the factory premises at 12:30 at night and thus, there was no occasion of any such accident to have occurred involving the vehicle of the appellants.

9. Responding Sri Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, has argued that in case a wrong vehicle number has been indicated in the claim petition vis-a-vis in the evidence that had been led by the claimants the same can be said to be only fault of the counsel and the claimants cannot be penalized for the same.

10. So as the ground that in the evidence it was indicated that the driver of the tractor involved in the accident had been caught while in the criminal case that had been lodged against the driver of the vehicle i.e. appellant no.4 herein it was indicated that he was never caught rather he surrendered on 02.06.2003, it is contended that these aspects of the matter have also been considered by the learned Tribunal and thus the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference.

11. So far as the contradiction as to who was accompanying the deceased namely whether it was nephew Sri Arvind Kumar or Sri Satish Kumar as indicated in the FIR it is indicated that in fact Sri Satish Kumar was accompanying the deceased which fact has also been considered by the learned Tribunal.

12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the learned Tribunal vide award impugned dated 09.12.2010 has awarded a sum of Rs.168,500 to the claimants along with 6% interest.

13.The accident is said to have occurred on 14.05.2003 at 09.00 PM when as per the averments made in the claim application the rider of the motorcycle namely Sri Ramesh Singh died on the spot and his nephew namely Sri Arvind Kumar who was riding pillion suffered minor injuries. In the FIR it has been indicated that the deceased was accompanying by his brother namely Sri Satish Kumar.

14. The motorcycle number as indicated in the claim application is also different from the motorcycle number as has been indicated in the evidence which has been indicated by the claimants.

15. An interesting aspect of the matter is that in the evidence which has been led by the claimants it has been indicated that the driver of the tractor involved in the accident had been caught while in the criminal case that had been lodged against the driver of the vehicle it has been indicated that he was never caught rather he surrendered on 02.06.2003.

16. Another incongruity which has been found in the judgment of the learned Tribunal is that learned Tribunal in paragraph 3.1.1 of its judgment has indicated that when there was an accident the witnesses found the tractor standing in the middle of the road while in the other part it has been indicated that the tractor was driven away from the spot. However, in the evidence of the brother of the deceased namely Sri Umesh it has been indicated that when he reached on the spot, the accident had already taken place and the tractor was standing on the road and the driver had been caught. Incidentally the aforesaid incongruities/inconsistencies as have been indicated in the instant appeal have escaped the attention of the learned Tribunal and no specific finding, either way, has been given by the learned Tribunal as emerges from perusal of the impugned judgment and award dated 09.12.2010.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the claimants have already received an amount of Rs.75,000/- in pursuance to the award of the learned Tribunal.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and inconsistencies in the award of the learned Tribunal as pointed out above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 09.12.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal is set-aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the claim application afresh keeping in view the observations made above.

19. Let the learned Tribunal decide the matter in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is placed on record of the learned Tribunal.

20. It is further provided that the amount which has already been received by the claimants would be subject to the award of the learned Tribunal.

21. Trial Court record be returned as per procedure.

Order Date :- 29.4.2025

A. Katiyar