First Appeal from Order No. 1023 of 2007. Case: U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam Lko. and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar Sonkar and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal from Order No. 1023 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Akhtar Abbas, Adv. and For Respondents: Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Mratunjay Singh, Raj Kumar Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advs. |
| Judges | Anil Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 41; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163A, 163A(3) |
| Citation | 2015 (3) ADJ 230 |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Anil Kumar, J.
-
Heard Sri Akhatar Abbas, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 3.4.2003 at about 7.40 p.m., Kumari Shiwani D/o Suresh Kumar Sonkar while walking on the road side at Raibareli-Lucknow route, a bus having Registration No. UP70X9381 was dashed her due to rash and negligent driving as a result of which she died on the spot.
-
On the same day, FIR was lodged by the claimants registered as Case Crime No. 108 of 2003 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC at Police Station-Kotwali, Rae bareli, but due to agitation, bus number has wrongly been mentioned as 9183 in stead of UP70X/9381.
-
Further, while filing the claim petition, the claimants have categorically mentioned the above said facts and in the claim petition, bus number is mentioned as UP70X/9381 as well as specifically pleaded that accident took place at Raibareli-Lucknow route at about 7.40 p.m. on 3.4.2003 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of said bus as a result of which Km. Shiwani who aged about 4 and 1/2 years died and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lack and fifty thousand) has been awarded. In the said matter, appellant filed a written statement inter alia denying the fact that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver/Amar Singh of bus which belongs to U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam Lko.
-
The Tribunal on the basis of evidence and material on record, allowed the claim petition No. 238/2006 by judgement and award dated 25.7.2007 thereby awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rs. one lakh fifty thousand) alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
-
Aggrieved the said Judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lko.
-
Shri Akhatar Abbas, learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment submits that accident did not take place by the driver of bus which belongs to U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lko. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the FIR in which bus number has been mentioned as 9183. Accordingly, it has been submitted that once the identity of the bus is not established by any cogent evidence then it cannot be said that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of bus which belongs to U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam Lko. However, in spite of the said pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident took place by the bus which belongs to U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lko.
-
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal in the instant matter is contrary to the provisions in respect to the award of the compensation as provided in Second Scheduled of Motor Vehicle Act and against the settled proposition of law. So, the same is liable to be set aside.
-
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents while supporting judgement and award submits that accident took place due to rash and negligence driving on the part of driver of bus which belongs to U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam, Lko. In this regard, specific pleading has been taken in the claim petition.
-
He further submits that the said facts have been provided by way of evidence given by P.W. 1/Suresh Kumar father of the deceased, P.W 2/Shyam Kumar, independent witness who in his examination, categorically stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of bus having registration No. UP70X9381. So, no benefit can be derived by the appellant on the ground that bus number has wrongly been mentioned in the F.I.R, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
-
I have heard learned counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial