Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Anil Kumar Pandey vs Iqbal Ahmad And Others on 12 April, 2023

Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker

Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2691 of 2005
 

 
Appellant :- Anil Kumar Pandey
 
Respondent :- Iqbal Ahmad And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- K.S. Ojha,Anil Kumar,Ashwani K.Mishra,Brijesh Dubey,Sufia Sabha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vipul Kumar, 
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
 

This appeal, at the behest of the appellant- Anil Kumar Pandey, challenges the judgment dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') dismissing the Claim Petition No.89 of 2003.

On 12.6.2003 at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening appellant- Anil Kumar Pandey was driving his motor cycle no. UP-64 B-2157 which dashed into truck bearing No. UP-64 A-3051 which was being driven rashly and negligently, on account of which, he suffered grievous injuries.

There is no reply filed by driver and owner of the truck. The claim petition was dismissed on surmise that the accident could have taken place at 4:30 p.m. not 6:30 p.m. though FIR and charge sheet are filed against the driver of the truck.

It seems that the learned Judge has treated this matter to be a matter under criminal jurisprudence and not under the Tort Jurisprudence or under Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 which is beneficial piece of legislation, the judgment cannot be sustained.

Hence, this appeal will have to be allowed but as the issue of compensation is concerned instead of relegating the parties to the Tribunal which may take more time. The officer of insurance company shall remain present on 1.5.2023 for deciding compensation in the matter as remanding the matter to the Tribunal will consume much time.

Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in First Appeal From Order No.3425 of 2016 ( Smt. Minakshi Srivastava and 3 others Vs. Dheeraj Pandey and 2 others) decided on 11.3.2022 where this High Court has set aside the order rejecting the petition in similar facts..

As against this Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no perversity in the order passed by Tribunal.

List on 1.5.2023 on which date officers shall remain present for conciliation in this matter.

Order Date :- 12.4.2023/Mukesh