Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Through ... vs Smt. Ruksana And Ors. on 15 May, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28561
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 81 of 2011
Appellant :- National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Through Its Regional Office
Respondent :- Smt. Ruksana And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Kumar Agarwal,A.P. Singh Vishen
Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh K. Tripathi,Suresh K. Singh
Along with
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1157 of 2011
Appellant :- Smt. Rukshana And Ors.
Respondent :- Romi Agarwal @ Nitesh Agarwal And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- A.P. Singh Vishen
Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi,Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Both the appeals arise out the judgment and award dated 30.09.2010.
InF.A.F.O. No. - 81 of 2011 under challenge is the judgment and award dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Gonda in M.A.C.P. No.68 of 2009 in re: Smt. Rukhsana and others vs. Romi Agarwal alias Nitesh Agarwal and others, while inF.A.F.O.D. No. - 1157 of 2011, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount.As such, both the appeals are being decided by a common order. For convenience, the facts of F.A.F.O. No. - 81 of 2011 are being taken into consideration.
By the said award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that an accident is said to have occurred at night on 28.01.2009 wherein one Sri Shah Mohammad was injured. Despite treatment, he died on 16.02.2009. A panchnama was drawn up, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the application for interim relief, the original of which has been perused by the Court from the original records, from which it emerges that five persons which also included one Sri Mohammad Ahmad, who is the son of the deceased, specifically indicated that the accident had occurred at night on 28.01.2009 on account of Sri Shah Mohammad having fallen down and having died on 16.02.2009 on account of injuries sustained by him.
Subsequent thereto, an FIR was lodged on 25.03.2009 against the Driver of a vehicle namely Sri Romi Agarwal by Sri Mohammad Ahmad i.e. son of the deceased indicating that Sri Shah Mohammad had been hit by a motorcycle while crossing the road on 28.01.2009 and on account of injuries sustained by him despite treatment he died on 16.02.2009. It is contended that the authorities also submitted a charge sheet in which the driver of the motorcycle namely Sri Romi Agarwal has been charge sheeted. The owner of the vehicle was Sri Shiv Nath Rastogi.
A claim application was filed before the learned Tribunal contending that Sri Shah Mohammad had died on account of being hit by the motorcycle being driven by Sri Romi Agarwal whose owner was Sri Shiv Nath Rastogi.
Before the learned Tribunal the panchnama was filed. However, the learned Tribunal without considering the said panchnama which did not indicate anything about the deceased having been hit by a motorcycle as per the claim set forth in the claim application has awarded the aforesaid amount and hence the instant appeal.
The sole ground as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the panchnama had been filed before the learned tribunal which was Paper No.17-Ga/10-11 as emerges from perusal of the record of the learned tribunal and the said incongruities specifically appeared in the said panchnama vis-a-vis the case set up by the claimants consequently it was the duty of the learned tribunal to have considered the aforesaid incongruities in the claim application that had been filed by the claimants but non-consideration of the same would thus vitiate the judgment passed by the learned tribunal.
Elaborating the same, Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that once from the panchnama of which one of the signatory was the son of the deceased it emerges that there was no whisper of the deceased having died on account of an accident having been caused by a motorcycle rather it was indicated that he died on account of the injuries suffered by him while having fallen down at night on 28.01.2009 consequently the contrary stand set up in the FIR lodged by the son of the deceased as well as the claim application should have been considered by the learned tribunal instead of only summarily referring to the panchnama and thereafter deciding the matter on the basis of other evidence which was led before the learned tribunal which thus vitiates the order.
As nobody has responded on behalf of the respondents despite the names of Sri Akhilesh K. Tripathi and Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, learned counsels, being indicated from the side of the respondents and F.A.F.O.D. No.1157 of 2011 which has also been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement being also connected with this file as such the Court has proceeded to hear the matter and have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
From the argument as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and from perusal of the record, it emerges that an accident had taken place on 28.01.2009 in which Sri Shah Mohammad was injured and he died despite treatment on 16.02.2009. In the panchnama which incidentally was signed by the son of Sri Shah Mohammad namely Sri Mohammad Ahmad there is no indication about an accident having occurred rather it has simply been indicated that Sri Shah Mohammad had fallen down at night on 28.01.2009 and having received injuries which despite treatment, resulted in his death.
Only subsequent thereto, an FIR was lodged on 25.03.2009 by the son of the deceased namely Sri Mohammad Ahmad in which it has been indicated that an accident had occurred with a vehicle which was being driven by Sri Romi Agarwal the driver of the vehicle.
Despite the panchnama having been filed as emerges from perusal of record as Paper No.17-Ga/10-11 as also emerges from perusal of the judgment (internal page 4 of the typed copy) yet the learned tribunal has failed to consider the said contradiction as emerges from perusal of the panchnama vis-a-vis the other evidence including the FIR and the charge sheet that were filed by the claimants before the learned Tribunal including the statement of the claimants and the statements of the owner and driver of the vehicle.
Needless to mention that once the panchnama was on record as such it was duty of the learned tribunal to have considered the same threadbare vis-a-vis other evidence that may have been led by the parties.
Considering the aforesaid incongruity as appears from perusal of the claim as set forth by the claimants vis-a-vis the claim application and the panchnama and other documents it emerges that the award passed by the learned tribunal is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly the award impugned dated 30.09.2010 is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal to decide the mater afresh keeping in view the observations made above.
In case any amount has already been received by the claimants, the same would be subject to the order passed by the learned tribunal.
As the claim application pertains to the year 2009 as such learned tribunal shall proceed to decide the same after hearing all the parties concerned in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments which claim application would be decided within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed on record of the learned tribunal.
It would also be open for the parties to raise other legal arguments that they may like to raise before the learned tribunal which would also be considered by the learned tribunal in accordance with law.
Let the trial court record be returned as per procedure.
Statutory amount, if any, deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal.
Order Date :- 15.5.2025
A. Katiyar
