Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 305 of 2011 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Respondent :- Smt. Indu Srivastava W/O Late Om Prakash Srivastava And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Prakash Dubey,Sandeep Kumar Agarwal,Vishal Tehlani Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard Shri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shivansh Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 2 and Shri Kartik Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Bhanu Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Despite the notice having served upon the respondent no. 3 as per office report dated 23.01.2012, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3. Accordingly, the Court proceed to hear and decide the matter finally. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited raising challenge to the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi/Additional District Judge, Room No.1, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 43/2006 inre: Smt. Indu Srivastava and Another Vs. Ritesh Kumar Agarwal &Others whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of 16,59,500/- along with interest to the ₹ claimants. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an accident is said to have occurred on 17.11.2004 at around 10 p.m. when Sri Om Prakash Srivastava (husband and father of the claimant nos. 1 and 2, respectively) was traveling by a Tata Spacio vehicle having Registration No. UP43 C2398 (hereinafter referred to as "Vehicle A") which crashed into a truck having Registration No. UP25-6792 (hereinafter referred to as "Vehicle B") from the backside which resulted in the death of two persons including Sri Om Prakash Srivastava. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim application. Learned Tribunal framed four issues. The controversy revolves around issue no. 4 which was as to whether on the fateful day there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident. Learned Tribunal has considered the aforesaid issue alongwith issue no. 1 and has concluded that drivers of both the vehicles were responsible. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. Two grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first ground is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Vehicle A as it has clearly emerged that Vehicle B was being driven without any back light which thus, resulted in the accident and consequently, learned Tribunal has patently erred in law in holding that drivers of both vehicles were responsible. The second ground is that in the written statement that had been filed by the appellant, it has been specifically indicated that the claimant no.1 is owner of the vehicle, consequently in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sadanad Mukhi and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417, the claimants would not be entitled for any compensation as claim application has been filed by the owner herself of the vehicle involved. No other grounds have been urged. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have supported the award of learned Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records. From a perusal of records it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 17.11.2004 wherein Vehicle A is said to have crashed into Vehicle B from the backside which has resulted into the death of Sri Om Prakash Srivastava and another person. The legal heirs of Om Prakash Srivastava filed the aforesaid claim application. Learned Tribunal has framed various issues in which issue no. 4 was as to whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence, was of the view that the speed of Vehicle B was around about 50 kmph and Vehicle A was being driven at a distance of 30-35 meters. Learned Tribunal has also indicated that as it was a highway, as such it is apparent that in case Vehicle A was being driven at a safe distance and in case Vehicle B would have braked, consequently the driver of Vehicle A could have applied brakes and the accident could have been prevented. However, the same was not done by the driver of Vehicle A with the result that the accident occurred and hence, drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the same. The same would thus fall within the ambit of contributory negligence. Perusal of statement of the witness who indicated about the speed of both vehicles has been considered threadbare by learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to persuade this Court to take a different view from that as has been taken by learned Tribunal more particularly when Vehicle A has dashed into Vehicle B from the back side and two persons died and it also indicates the intensity of the accident and which resulted from the speed with which Vehicle A was being driven. Thus, the said ground is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. As regards the second ground that the claimant no. 1 was the owner of the vehicle and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadanad Mukhi and Others (Supra), the owner of the vehicle may not be entitled for compensation, suffice it to say that claim application had been filed by both the owner (wife of the deceased) as well the son of the deceased. Had the wife of the deceased only filed the claim application, different view might have been taken but considering that it is also the son of the claimant who has filed the aforesaid claim application as such, the Court finds the aforesaid ground to be hypothetical and this Court is not convinced. Accordingly, the said ground is also rejected. Keeping in view aforesaid, no case for interference in the order of learned Tribunal is made out. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The amount under deposit before this Court be remitted to learned Tribunal by the Office within two weeks, to be disbursed to the claimants as per rules. Office shall send a copy of this order along with learned trial Court record within two weeks from today as per procedure. On receipt of the said order, the learned Tribunal shall inform the claimants about the order passed by this Court. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench