Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 378 (ALL)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. REENA AWASTHI

2009-02-02

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, V.D.CHATURVEDI

body2009
JUDGMENT : DEVI PRASAD SINGH, V.D. CHATURVEDI, JJ. 1. Both these appeals arise from the same road accident caused by the motor cycle No. UP 41-B 1766, in which two real minor brothers died, hence appeals are decided by the present common judgment and order. 2. On 22.12.1998, Ravi Shanker and Munna, two minor children aged about 11 and 8 years, met with accident at Jaidpur in District Barabanki, in the morning at about 8 a.m. while on way riding a cycle to attend the school. The accident was caused by the motor cycle No. UP 41-B 1766. Both the boys succumbed to injuries in District Hospital, Barabanki. F.I.R. was lodged and Case Crime No. 232 of 1998 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Jaidpur, District Barabanki. In the F.I.R., the vehicle number was not given. However, later on during the course of investigation, the vehicle number was detected. One Ajai Kumar was found to be the owner of the vehicle No. UP 41-B 1766 which was insured with the policy No. 504022. At the time when the accident occurred the insurance policy was in operation. Two separate claim petitions were filed which were registered as M.A.C. Nos. 35 of 1999 and 36 of 1999 in the court of V-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barabanki. The Tribunal decreed the claim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,54,500 on account of death of Ravi Shanker and same amount of Rs. 1,54,500 awarded on account of death of Munna to claimant Reena Awasthi, wife of Budhai Ram. Before the Tribunal, it was stated on behalf of the claimant that the motor cycle was driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident in question. During the course of trial, application u/s 170 of Motor Vehicles Act was moved by the Appellant insurance company but the same was rejected by the Tribunal. 3. While assailing the impugned award, on behalf of the Appellant insurance company, Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal should not have rejected the application u/s 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and an opportunity should have been given to defend the case. It has further been submitted that the controversy be remanded to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh allowing the Appellant to contest the case. 4. Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal should not have rejected the application u/s 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and an opportunity should have been given to defend the case. It has further been submitted that the controversy be remanded to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh allowing the Appellant to contest the case. 4. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the claimant's counsel that the vehicle in question was insured with Appellant insurance company which has not been denied while preferring the present appeal. It has been further submitted that the accident occurred by the vehicle, has been duly proved and there is no denial while filing appeal that the vehicle was not insured. 5. So far as the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant insurance company that the vehicle was not involved in the accident is concerned, it has been vehemently denied by the claimant's counsel on the ground that in the criminal case during investigation, the inquiry officer recorded a finding that the accident was caused by the same vehicle owned and possessed by Ajai Kumar. The vehicle number, identity of the vehicle as well as the owner has been duly investigated and proved in the criminal case and there is no doubt with regard to involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident in question. 6. We have heard the arguments at length and perused record. 7. From the perusal of the record and both the judgments, it appears that the claimant had led evidence and on the basis of evidence a finding of fact has been recorded that the accident was caused by the motor cycle which was owned and possessed by Ajai Kumar. Reference has also been given by the Tribunal with regard to registration of the criminal case against the same owner of the vehicle. The witness Virendra Kumar had categorically stated that on 22.12.1998, the accident was caused by the motor cycle No. UP 41-B 1766 and in the said accident, Ravi Shanker and Munna were seriously injured who later on succumbed to the injuries. The witness produced by the claimant seems to be an independent witness and his statement does not seem to suffer from any personal interest. The witness produced by the claimant seems to be an independent witness and his statement does not seem to suffer from any personal interest. Learned Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased children, applied the multiplier of 15 as provided in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. It is settled proposition of law that while awarding compensation u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and while adjudging the justness of the compensation in view of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal may award the compensation being guided by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, from the perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the accident was caused by the same motor cycle possessing number as UP 41-B 1766. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 9. Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed. The amount deposited in this Court shall be released forthwith in favour of the claimant.