Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2816 (ALL)

Ratiram v. Raj Kumar

2014-09-10

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 1. Heard. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 26.9.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1020 of 2008 (Raj Kumar alias Banna v. Rati Ram and others) whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,56,700/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim till actual payment is made has been awarded in favour of claimant and against the appellant. 2. As per brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the claimant after being relieved from his duty from Tar Factory, while going on bicycle to his home, near village Bhauti, at about 5: 30 p.m. was hit by a bus bearing registration No. UP 79B/7252 coming from Kisan Nagar and going to Kanpur, due to which he fell down and had sustained serious injuries on his left leg, shoulder and various other injuries on the entire body. He had suffered several fractures for which he was treated in the hospital. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. UP 79B/7252. 3. The learned Tribunal after coming to conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,700/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimant and against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the offending vehicle, at the time of occurrence of the accident, was not plied on the permit route and in view of the violation of terms of the insurance policy, the appellant being owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. It is submitted that there is no specific denial by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was not plied on the permit route and, as such, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have come to conclusion that the place of occurrence of accident is not on the permit route. 5. It is also submitted that the permit of the offending vehicle was placed on record before the learned Tribunal, however, the learned Tribunal has not properly decided the relevant issue framed in this regard. 6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant. 5. It is also submitted that the permit of the offending vehicle was placed on record before the learned Tribunal, however, the learned Tribunal has not properly decided the relevant issue framed in this regard. 6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and gone through the record. 8. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has framed certain issues which on reproduction read as under: --Hindi-- 9. For the purpose of considering the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, issue No. 4 is relevant. While deciding issue No. 4, the learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that the permit of the offending vehicle issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur Nagar is with respect to the route from Kisan Nagar to Shiwali via Maitha. It was valid for the period 23.10.2007 to 22.10.2012. The fitness certificate and pollution certificate are on record which are valid. 10. The learned Tribunal has held that the site plan depicting the place of occurrence of the accident, placed on record, indicates that the place of occurrence is not on the National Highway whereas the permit route from Kisan Nagar to Shiwali via Maitha is on National Highway No. 2 which goes to Kalpi from Kanpur. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence on record has come to conclusion that since the place of occurrence of accident is not on the permit route, as such, the offending vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident was not plied on the permit route, hence there was violation of the terms of insurance policy. The learned Tribunal as such has held the liability on the owner of the vehicle i.e. present appellant to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimant. 11. There is nothing on record to indicate that the place of occurrence of accident is on the permit route. 12. The appellant has failed to show before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court that the said place of occurrence of the accident is on the permit route. 13. 11. There is nothing on record to indicate that the place of occurrence of accident is on the permit route. 12. The appellant has failed to show before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court that the said place of occurrence of the accident is on the permit route. 13. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the respondent-Insurance Company has not denied that the said place of occurrence of accident is on the permit route, suffice is to observe that the burden to prove that the place of occurrence of accident was on the permit route lies on the appellant and the appellant has failed to prove that the place of occurrence of accident was within the permit route of the offending vehicle, as such, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith for necessary compliance.