Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 419 (ALL)

Union of India v. Mamta Kakaran

2016-02-02

RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Defect of formal order has not been removed so far. However, we have heard Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has arisen from award dated 03.10.2009 passed by Sri Pratap Singh-II, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 838 of 2004 awarding compensation of Rs. 8,28,123. 3. At Railway crossing, on 12.08.2004, one Anuj Kakran was traveling in Indica Car No. HR-51/M-9962. While reached at Railway, the car was ran down by Train No. 306 Down wherein he died. 4. Legal heirs of deceased filed an application for compensation before Tribunal. It formulated following issues: "(1) Whether on 12.8.2004 at 11.20 A.M. at Railway Crossing situated near Agriculture University P.S. Daurala, Meerut Anuj Kakaran while travelling in Indica Car No. HR 51-M 9962 along with Naresh Malik and when Indica Car reached at Railway Track Train No. 306 Down arrived from Daurala side driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed with Car resulting in death of Anuj Kakaran? (2) Whether the Indica Car No. HR-51-M 9962 was insured by the opposite party no. 3, National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and was being driven by the driver having valid driving license in terms of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy concerned? (3) Whether driver of Indica Car No. HR-51-M-9962 committed breach of the terms and conditions of Section 133 and 134 of the M.V Act. If so, its effect? (4) Whether this tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition in view of the provisions of Section 13, 15 and 26 of R.C.T. Act, 1987? (5) To what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled and from which of the opposite party. 5. Issues 1 and 3 have been taken together and answered in favour of claimants-respondents. Learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that neither any negligence or otherwise lapses on the part of Car driver could be shown nor that appellant was not liable to pay compensation. No otherwise factual or legal defect or error has been shown in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that neither any negligence or otherwise lapses on the part of Car driver could be shown nor that appellant was not liable to pay compensation. No otherwise factual or legal defect or error has been shown in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for appellant could not point out any manifest error either in the quantum of compensation awarded to claimants-respondents or otherwise. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere. 6. Appeal is dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.