F.A.F.O. No. 1078 of 2012. Case: Sahayak Chhetriya Prabandhak Vs Meera and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | F.A.F.O. No. 1078 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Akhter Abbas, Adv. and For Respondents: Shakti Singh, Adv. |
| Judges | Anil Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163A, 166, 168, 173 |
| Citation | 2015 (108) ALR 771 |
| Judgement Date | November 25, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Anil Kumar, J.
-
Heard Sri Akhter Abbas, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shakti Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent. Present appeal has been filed by Sahayak Chhetriya Prabandhak, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lucknow under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 9.8.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Lucknow in claim petition No. 197 of 2010 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Smt. Meera and others v. Sahayak Chhetriya Parabandhak, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lucknow, thereby awarding an amount of ` 3,93,500/- with simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of petition.
-
Facts, in brief, of the present case are that on 22.3.2010 at about 12.30 p.m. Near UCO Bank, Banthara, Kanpur Road Vijay Kumar Lodhi was standing on the side of road with his friend Vishal Singh, a bus belongs to U.P.S.R.T.C. having registration No. U.P. 42 T/6560 hit the deceased due to rash and negligent driving by the driver as a result of which Vijay Kumar Lodhi sustained grievous injuries later on died.
-
Sri Akhter Abbas, learned Counsel for the appellant while challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal submits that the finding given by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is incorrect, contrary to the material on record that the driver was not driving the bus rashly and negligently. In this regard Tribunal has not considered the evidence given by the driver Ram Ji (D.W. 1) on the point in issue, so the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
-
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record.
-
Further from the perusal of the material on record the position which emerge out is that while adjudicating the claim petition the Tribunal has framed four issues.
-
So far as issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are that (a) whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving the driver of the bus (b) whether the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased.
-
The Tribunal on the basis of material on record as well as taking into consideration the evidence, oral as well as documentary, mainly the evidence given by P.W. 2 (Harish Chand Saroj an eye-witness) that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the roadways bus as a result of which, two persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial