High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State v. Smt. Jatima - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 703 of 1982  RD-AH 14329 (21 August 2007)
First Appeal From Order No. 703 of 1982
State of U.P ...... Appellant
Smt.Fatima & others ...... Respondents
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J
Heard the learned standing counsel. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
This appeal is under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, against the Award dated 31.3.1982 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 13 of 1980.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation against the present appellant. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows.
One Shamshuddin while driving on a cycle met with an accident on 17.10.1979 when he had gone to market for selling cloth and was returning from the market after selling it on the same day in the evening. His cycle was dashed from behind by the Truck No. USE 7621 and it was being driven by Ravindra Pal Singh, opposite party No. 2 in the claim-petition.
In reply to the claim petition it was stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the cyclist and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the truck.
The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties struck off four issues and under issue No. 2 & 3 it was found that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. It consequently awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation amount along with the interest.
The learned standing counsel in support of the appeal challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal under the issues No. 2 & 3. Issue No. 2 is with the effect as to whether Truck No. USE 7621 was being driven rashly and negligently and the accident was the result of such driving. Issue No. 3 was to the effect as to whether the deceased was driving his bicycle negligently? If so, its effect.
The parties led evidence in support of the respective cases with reference to the aforesaid issues. The claimants have examined Jamil Ahmad and Habib Ahmad who deposed that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. The State of U.P, on the other hand, examined the truck driver Ravindra Pal Singh and one Tannoo Singh. The Tribunal, after making analysis of the evidence produced by the parties, disbelieved the evidence of the truck driver being interested person and the evidence of Tannoo Singh as he was a chance witness. It has also noted the contradiction in the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses and ultimately reached to the conclusion that the presence of Tannoo Singh at the time of accident is doubtful. After appreciating the evidence on record it has reached to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and in my view rightly so. Even otherwise also the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable.
No other point was pressed. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Prakash Krishna, J.)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.