Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1183
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : HULUVADI G. RAMESH AND SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, JJ.
SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(First Appeal From Order No. 1804 of 2014, decided on 29th September, 2015)
Counsel :
Virendra Prasad Mishra, J. Nagar and Manish Tandan for the Appellant; Vidya Kant Shukla for the Respondents.
Headnote:Motor Vehicle Act, 1988—Sections 173 and 169—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order XLI, Rule 27 and Section 151—Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998—Rule 221—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Award—Appeal against—Scope of interference with—Whether the documents filed by appellant-owner can be taken on record for decision of case at appellate stage—Applicability of provisions of Cr. P.C.—Practice and Procedure—Evidence on oath/Affidavit—Scope—Tribunal exercises quasi-judicial power and there appears no bar to powers of appellate Courts for admission of additional evidence in the appeal although as per Rule 221 the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of Code are not applicable in Accident Claims Petition—In exercise of inherent power also the Court can accept additional evidence under provisions of CPC provided facts and circumstances of permitted to do so—Respondents-claimants have to establish their case merely on touchstone of preponderance of probability but report dated 11.6.2010 as submitted by son of deceased narrates altogether different mode and manner of accident—Thus, Court has to invoke inherent jurisdiction to admit the additional evidence filed by the appellant as well as counter-affidavit—Two versions of alleged accident have emerged alongwith two different pillion riders—Impugned award set aside—Matter remitted back to Tribunal for a fresh decision—Directions issued. [Paras 13 to 23]
Result; Appeal Allowed.
Hon’ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.—Heard Sri V.P. Mishra alongwith Sri J. Nagar and Manish Tandan, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents claimants and have gone through the record.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellant/owner against the award dated 26.2.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court 14, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 719 of 2010 (Smt. Krishna Devi and others v. Sushil Kumar Gupta), whereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 14,47,818/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to be payable from the date of petition.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows :
3. That Suryapal Singh (since deceased) met with an accident on 21.5.2010 at 8 p.m. near the bridge ahead to village Banthari within P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, while Truck No. U.P. 78-N-9840 hit from back the motorcycle No. U.P. 91-B-1833 which was being driven by him and his real brother Surendra Singh was the pillion rider. According to the claimants-respondents, Suryapal Singh sustained serious injuries over his head and other parts of the body and the motorcycle was also badly damaged. The injured was initially treated in District Hospital, Hamirpur but was referred for further treatment. The injured received further treatment in the Regency Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, however, he succumbed to injuries on 29.5.2010. The pillion rider Surendra Singh went to police station on 31.5.2010 to lodge the F.I.R. but no report was written. Thereafter on 4.6.2010 and 11.1.2011 two typed reports were sent by registered post to S.P., Hamirpur. As no report was written, therefore, on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by Surendra Singh First Information Report at Crime No. 1019 of 2011 dated 11.6.2011 was registered against unknown driver of offending truck registration No. U.P. 78-N-9840 at P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. Alleging that the deceased was a tube well operator in the Irrigation Department, U.P. and earning a sum of Rs. 13,225/- per month, the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased for compensation of Rs. 17,93,000/-.
4. The sole appellant owner contested the petition by way of filing a written statement dated 27.9.2011 with averment that no such accident as alleged by the claimants had ever taken place with his Truck No. U.P. 78-N-9840. It was further stated that the truck on 11.3.2010 about 8 p.m. in between village Hamiramau and Ajyouri on Kanpur Hamirpur road turned turtle and was in such a bad condition that it could not be plied on the road and was lifted by crane and brought to Indrani Auto Motor and Garage Transport Nagar, Kanpur Nagar for extensive repairs. The truck remained stranded in the said garage from 13.3.2010 to 10.8.2010 and was not plied on any route. The case of the owner appellant was that the claim petition was filed on false and manipulated grounds simply to extract money by using his truck number and petition was liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated four issues and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties recorded a finding against the owner appellant that the accident took place on 21.5.2010 at about 8 p.m. due to rash and negligence driving of truck bearing registration No. U.P. 78-N-9840 near the bridge ahead to village Banthari within P.S. Sumer, while Suryapal Singh was driving his motorcycle No. U.P. 91 B - 1833 and was returning to his village alongwith pillion rider Surendra Singh (brother). The said motorcycle was hit from back by the said truck, causing injuries to Suryapal Singh, who died on 29.5.2010 during treatment. The defence version of the appellant owner was rejected and issue No. 1 was decided in affirmative.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award dated 26.5.2014, the appellant owner has filed appeal under Section 173 of the
