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 1, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M. vs Kusum And 3 Others on 17 January, 2015

Author: Abhinava Upadhya

Bench: Abhinava Upadhya





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 128 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M.
 
Respondent :- Kusum And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajal Krishna
 

 
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
 

This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 1.10.2014 in MAC No.1346 of 2012. 

The appellant is UPSRTC. The bus involved  in the accident  belonged  to one Smt. Saira Begum and was attached with UPSRTC and was also duly insured.  It is submitted that an accident took place on 4.8.2012 at about 11.00 AM. The accident occurred between one tempo bearing registration no. UP-15AT-4398 and the bus bearing registration no. UP-17T-1587 which was attached with the appellant.  From the same accident another claim petition was filed  in which award was pronounced  by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, which was subject matter of challenge before a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order  No. 2178 of 2014 and this Court considering  the material  on record stayed the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the controversy involved is the same, therefore, the appellant  is also entitled  for the same order. In First Appeal From Order No. 2178 of 2014 the following order was passed:

"Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the bus, bearing registration no.UP-17-T-1587 was involved in the accident was owned by Smt. Sabra Begum and was attached with U.P.S.R.T.C. The said vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. The liability has been fastened on the appellant on the ground that the vehicle did not possess the permit. He submitted that as per policy, the appellant prepares the permit of the route and it is wrong to say that there was no permit. He further submitted that since the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, hence the U.P.S.R.T.C. is not liable to pay the compensation. Reliance is placed on decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Kulsum and others, reported in (2011) 8 SCC, 142.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. The appellant may take steps to serve the respondents by registered post.
Until further orders of this Court, the recovery proceeding initiated against the appellant shall remain stayed."

Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is also entitled  for the aforesaid order and it is, accordingly, ordered.

Order Date :- 17.1.2015 SKM