Patna High Court - Orders
Md.Sayead Akhtar Khan & Ors vs Chandrika Prasad & Ors on 10 July, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.334 of 2004
MD.SAYEAD AKHTAR KHAN & ORS
Versus
CHANDRIKA PRASAD & ORS
-----------
19/ 10.07.2008Heard learned counsel for the appellant Md. Sayeed Akhtar Khan and others as also learned counsel for respondent no. 3 United Insurance Company Limited.
Nobody appears for other respondents, although, service against them has been held to be valid.
This appeal has been directed against the order dated 6th July 2004 passed in Claim Case No. 69/1995 / 13/2004 by Sri Nirmalesh Chandra Lala, the then District & Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 2, Patna, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed by holding that appellants have failed to prove that Badruddin Khan died on account of motor vehicle accident caused by bus bearing Registration No. BR-21P-8463.
Today, supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the appellants referring some documents and submission has been advanced that some papers which were lying could not be brought on the record due to accident and laches on the part of the conducting lawyer or the party. Due to that reason those papers could not be considered in right perspective and for that the claim of the appellants was decided against them by holding that no accident took place as alleged, causing death of Badruddin on 13.04.1995 in the district of -2- Hazaribagh (now in the State of Jharkhand).
The learned court below has meticulously examined the entire fact, circumstances and evidence led on behalf of the parties and rightly came to the conclusion that applicants have failed to prove that deceased Badruddin died on account motor vehicle accident. Now, cursory looking into the documents of chapter 4 which are intend to be filed by the appellants/applicants here, it would reveal that the Xerox copy of the post mortem report has been filed with the supplementary affidavit which goes to show that it was related to an unknown 45 years Hindu male. Admitted position is that name of deceased was Badruddin Khan who was above 50 years old and on whose dead body post mortem examination was held in Hazaribagh Hospital. It does not at all tally with the description of the deceased. His legal heirs have brought claim petition for compensation in the Tribunal.
Having considered aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal for giving an opportunity to lead evidence afresh and to decide the matter by remitting the file to the Tribunal.
The appeal thus, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)