THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SMT. KAMLA DEVI AND 4 OTHERS
FAFO/1743/2018 · 2025-05-22
Saral Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18002 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18002 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88273 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1743 of 2018 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Kamla Devi And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- ,Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava,Ramesh Chandra Pathak Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgement and award dated 25.11.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Basti in MACP No.109 of 2016, whereby the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.36,48,240/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the death of one Lalman in an accident on 02.08.2016 with vehicle No.UP51T/5892.
3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company has contended that the accident had not taken place by vehicle No.UP51T/5892. It is contended that in the instant case, First Information Report was lodged against unknown vehicle and the owner/driver of the offending vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and deposed that no accident had taken place by his vehicle. It is contended that it is a case of false implication of the offending vehicle inasmuch as owner/driver of the offending
vehicle has proved the fact by appearing before the Tribunal that no accident had taken place by his vehicle.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the claimants-respondents proved the accident by producing P.W.-2, who was an independent witness and eye witness of the accident who deposed before the Tribunal that the accident had taken place by the offending vehicle No.UP51T/5892. It is contended that the charge-sheet was filed against the offending vehicle and it is admitted by D.W.- 1 in his testimony that the offending vehicle was taken into custody by the Police on the date of filing of the First Information Report. It is contended that the finding returned by the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of
facts and evidence on record.
5. Be that as it may, the Tribunal while concluding that the alleged accident had taken place by the offending vehicle No.UP51T/5892 has placed reliance upon the testimony of P.W.-2 who was independent witness and eye witness of the accident. P.W.-2 has categorically deposed in his testimony that the accident had taken place by the offending vehicle No.UP51T/5892. He has further deposed that the offending vehicle was caught at the place of accident. It is pertinent to note that the testimony of P.W.-2 has been corroborated by other evidence on record i.e. namely charge-sheet submitted by the Police against the offending vehicle. D.W.-1 has appeared before the Tribunal and has denied the involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident, but he himself deposed that on the date of filing of the First Information Report, the offending vehicle was taken into custody by the Police and it was released after ten days.
6. The owner/driver of the offending vehicle did not produce any independent witness to establish that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The law is settled that the claimant-respondent is supposed to prove the accident on the preponderance of the probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In the instant case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle is a finding of fact and this Court does not find any perversity committed by the Tribunal in concluding that the accident had taken place by the offending vehicle No.UP51T/5892. In such view of the fact, this Court is of the view that the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable in law.
8. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad