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 4, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Keshar Devi Jaiswal And Others vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 29 August, 2023

Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker

Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175035
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 635 of 1997
 
Appellant :- Smt. Keshar Devi Jaiswal And Others
 
Respondent :- The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Mishra,Madhur Prakash,Neerja Singh,Sharve Singh,Sunil Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- No,A.P.Tewari,S.S.Tripathi,Usha Kiran
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
 

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.5.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Maharajganj, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition being of claimants being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 9 of 1993 preferred by the claimants.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that there was a typographical mistake in the claim petition regarding the date of incident though the F.I.R. and Charge-sheet was there. Could this have been done under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Tribunal should have to take practical approach in the matter when the F.I.R. and Charge-sheet speak about the incident having taken place on 18.11.1992. It was typographical error in claim petition drafted by the Advocate. Should the claimant be non suited for this error on the part of Advocate? The answer would be No?

4. Trappings of Civil Procedure Code or Criminal Procedure Code would not be strictly applied to the proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act which is a beneficial piece of legislation. This court is fortified in its view by the decisions in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2018 (5) SCC 656 and Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186.

5. In view of the above, on a very short point this appeal is allowed. Record be sent back to the Tribunal. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal shall decide the quantum payable to the appellants within eight weeks from today.

Order Date :- 29.8.2023 DKS