Jagdish Pal S/O Shyam Lal Pal vs Jgjiwan Bux Singh S/O Harsh Bahadur ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 973 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jagdish Pal S/O Shyam Lal Pal vs Jgjiwan Bux Singh S/O Harsh Bahadur ... on 14 May, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28134
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 248 of 2011
 

 
Appellant :- Jagdish Pal S/O Shyam Lal Pal
 
Respondent :- Jgjiwan Bux Singh S/O Harsh Bahadur Singh And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobh Nath Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Kr. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Tarun Kr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur in MACP No.312 of 2009 in Re: Jadish Pal vs. Jagjiwan Bux Singh and Others, whereby the claim application filed by the claimant / appellant has been rejected.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts are that an accident is said to have occurred on 22.06.2006 at 7:30 pm involving three persons namely the Shri Jagdish Pal (claimant), Shri Ram Sundar and Shri Lalloo. The accident is said to have occurred with a Tanker No. UP-44-B/1228 which the claimant claims to have hit the motorcycle on which the three persons were standing at the side of the road and in which Shri Ram Sundar and Shri Lalloo died on the spot and the claimant herein suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized.

4. Upon filing of the claim application, the insurance company as well as the Driver of the tanker put in appearance before the learned Tribunal. The specific evidence was led by them to indicate that on the fateful day, i.e. 22.06.2006, the said tanker did not even touch the territorial boundary of District Sultanpur.

5. In this regard, evidence was led to indicate that at about 07:30 P.M., at which time the alleged accident is said to have occurred, the said tanker was de-tanking at M/S AjaI Service Station which is situated at Allahabad.

6. Learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence as led before it, has dismissed the claim application and hence, the instant appeal.

7. Although a ground has not been taken in the instant appeal or even during the course of pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has orally stated that with respect to the same accident, the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo had filed a claim application which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal and consequently, as the accident has been admitted before the learned Tribunal, as such, there cannot be any occasion for the learned Tribunal to have held otherwise with respect to the case of the present appellant.

8. Considering the aforesaid, the Court, vide order dated 05.03.2018, had required Shri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company to file an affidavit bringing on record the relevant facts.

9. In pursuance thereof, the affidavit had been filed on 24.01.2023.

10. Shri Mishra has also produced the judgment of the learned claims Tribunal in Claim Application No.196 of 2006 in Re: Smt. Sheela and Others vs. Jagjivan Bux Singh and Others which had been filed by the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the legal heirs of Shri Lallo.

11. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have dismissed the case of the appellant by holding that the accident did not take place from the tanker and at the same time to have awarded compensation to the legal heirs of Shri Lallo, who also died in the same accident from a tanker, and thus the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal merits to be set aside on this ground alone.

12. The other argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that D.W.-1 namely Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, the investigator the insurance company, had not taken the statement of the driver and the owner of the vehicle as he did not deem it necessary to take their statements and he has also not informed that the matter is being investigated by the police.

13. No other ground has been urged.

14. On the other hand, Shri Tarun Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim application filed by the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo as the evidence which was led in the case of the appellant herein could not be filed at that stretch of time.

15. Elaborating the same, Shri Mishra argues that the claim application have been filed by the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo in the year 2006 which was decided on 22.12.2007 while in the instant case, the claim application has been filed in the year 2009 and by that time, the respondents were having the complete evidence with them which was filed before the learned Tribunal, which has been considered by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim application of the appellant, and thus, in case the learned Tribunal has passed an order in the case of a deceased person who might have accompanied the appellant yet the said order has been passed by the learned Tribunal without considering the evidence as has been led in the case of the present appellant and consequently an award has been passed with respect to the deceased person yet the same cannot be a ground to either extend the award or grant any amount / compensation to the appellant.

16. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

17. From a perusal of the record, it emerges that an accident is said to have taken place on 22.06.2006 at 7:30 pm in which the appellant claims to have been injured and two other persons namely Shri Ram Sundar and Shri Lalloo died on the spot.

18. The appellant has filed a claim application in the year 2009.

19. However, even prior to the said date, the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo have filed a Claim Application No.196 of 2006 before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence as has been led before it, passed an award dated 22.12.2007 wherein a certain amount has been awarded as compensation to the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo.

20. However in the case of the appellant, his claim application has been rejected.

21. A perusal of the judgment 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal along with the records of the learned Tribunal would indicate that the learned Tribunal has considered that at the time and date of the incident i.e. on 22.06.2006 at 07:30 P.M., the tanker in question was de-tanking at M/S Ajai Service Station at Allahabad. The refill invoice of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. duly bearing the endorsement of the said tanker namely UP-44-B/1228 having arrived on 22.06.2006 at 06:30 P.M. and having de-tanked and left at 07:30 P.M. has been filed before the learned Tribunal.

22. The evidence aforesaid has prevailed on the learned Tribunal in holding that at the date and time of the alleged accident, the said tanker was not even present at the spot rather had not even touched the territorial boundary of District Sultanpur and consequently, the claim application of the claimant has been rejected.

23. Incidentally, the evidence which was filed before the learned Tribunal has gone unrebutted inasmuch as, the appellant / claimant failed to indicate anywhere that the evidence as has been led by the respondents was vitiated or not genuine which aspect of the matter has also been considered by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim application.

24. So far as the judgment of the learned Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sheela (supra) is concerned, it would be suffice to state that the aforesaid claim application was filed in the year 2006 and decided in the year 2007 and the evidence, as was led by the respondents in the case of the appellant herein, was never led before the learned Tribunal and consequently, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the legal heirs of Shri Lalloo.

25. Merely because a compensation has been awarded in a similar matter but the evidence is contrary as to what has been led in the case of the claimant / appellant, consequently, no error is found in the judgment of the learned Tribunal whereby the claim application has been dismissed more particularly when the accident itself from the aforesaid tanker has not been proved by the claimant.

26. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.

27. Let the trial court record be transmitted back.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

S. Shivhare