High Court · 2025

Appellant :- The Commandant 10th Batalion P.A.C. Barabanki Respondent :- Smt. Phoolkala And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents nos. 1 to 5. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 28.01.2011 passed by the MACT/ADJ, Court No. 2, Faizabad wherein in a death case, a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 5. The instant appeal has been filed with delay and the office has reported a delay of about four months and two days. The Court has considered the submissions regarding condonation of delay and also perused the affidavit filed in support of application. The grounds shown appears to be sufficient, accordingly, the delay is condoned. Office shall allot a regular number to the instant appeal. Since the appeal is of the year 2011, the Court has requested the learned counsel for the parties to advance their submissions on the admission of the appeal. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has pointed out that as per the report of the office, the respondent no. 6 is reported to be dead. Having taken note of the aforesaid office report dated 04.07.025, this Court finds that in so far as the respondent no. 6 is concerned, he was the driver of the offending vehicle and an employee of the appellant-State. Accordingly, upon his death, there can be no impact upon the award, hence, once the employer is already contesting the proceedings, mere non-substitution of the heirs of the driver is not going to impact the outcome of the award, hence, the Court has requested the learned Standing Counsel to make his submissions. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, inasmuch as, he was driving an ambulance, however, not carrying any sick or infirm person/patient rather he was ferrying certain gratuitous passengers which was not permissible, accordingly, he himself being responsible for the accident, the amount could not have been saddled on the appellant. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that ample evidence was led before the Claims Tribunal whereas the negligence of the driver of the PAC Truck being driven rashly and negligently was established. In such circumstances, there could be no averment nor there is any material on record to indicate that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal suffers from any error and moreover since the appeal is pending before the court since2011, the claimants respondents have not received the compensation. It is urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material on records, it would indicate that as per the contention of the claimants, it was alleged that one Sri Subhash Chand was driving an ambulance on 18.04.2001 and around 11:30 at night, he had taken the said ambulance for participating in a function held by the employer. At around 12:45 AM on the Faizabad-Lucknow Highway near Village Mathura, the offending truck bearing No. UP 41-0922 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the ambulance and the impact was so great that the ambulance went off the road and fell in a nearby ditch. It is in the aforesaid accident that the driver of the ambulance namely Subhash Chand died on the spot and in respect of the said accident, the Claim Petition No. 135 of 2008 came to be filed. A claim petition was contested by the appellants and upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed five issues. Primarily, the issue no. (i) is important as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant relates to the negligence as to whether it is the appellant or even the deceased responsible for the accident. In this regard, if the findings of the Tribunal while dealing with issue no. (i) and (iv) is considered, it would indicate that the claimants had examined Sri Indrajeet who was an eye-witness, the factum of the accident was not disputed. The explanation was given that the accident occurred upon attempt of overtaking the vehicle, however, the fact remains that in so far as the foundational facts regarding the occurrence of the accident is concerned, that is not disputed but rather admitted. The Tribunal also noticed that from the statement of the other witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and taking their depositions viz. a viz. the statement recorded of Sri Indrajeet who was the driver of the offending vehicle PAC truck, if found that in respect of the said accident, a First Information Report was also lodged wherein the same driver i.e. Sri Indrajeet was found involved and he was charge sheeted. It is in this context that the findings regarding the negligence were returned by the Tribunal. This Court does not find that there has been any palpable error committed by the Tribunal in appraising the evidence available on record to reach the conclusion of the negligence while dealing with issue nos. (1) and (iv), no perversity could have been pointed out by which it could persuade this Court to interfere in the instant appeal. No other point has been pressed, accordingly, this Court finds that the award dated 28.01.2025 passed by the MACT/ADJ, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 135 of 2008 does not suffer from any error, accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant while filing the instant appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents as per the award and the shortfall along with up to date interest shall also be made good by the appellant to the claimants-respondents as per the award within a period of 60 days from today. With the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Appellant :- The Commandant 10th Batalion P.A.C. Barabanki Respondent :- Smt. Phoolkala And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents nos. 1 to 5. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 28.01.2011 passed by the MACT/ADJ, Court No. 2, Faizabad wherein in a death case, a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 5. The instant appeal has been filed with delay and the office has reported a delay of about four months and two days. The Court has considered the submissions regarding condonation of delay and also perused the affidavit filed in support of application. The grounds shown appears to be sufficient, accordingly, the delay is condoned. Office shall allot a regular number to the instant appeal. Since the appeal is of the year 2011, the Court has requested the learned counsel for the parties to advance their submissions on the admission of the appeal. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has pointed out that as per the report of the office, the respondent no. 6 is reported to be dead. Having taken note of the aforesaid office report dated 04.07.025, this Court finds that in so far as the respondent no. 6 is concerned, he was the driver of the offending vehicle and an employee of the appellant-State. Accordingly, upon his death, there can be no impact upon the award, hence, once the employer is already contesting the proceedings, mere non-substitution of the heirs of the driver is not going to impact the outcome of the award, hence, the Court has requested the learned Standing Counsel to make his submissions. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, inasmuch as, he was driving an ambulance, however, not carrying any sick or infirm person/patient rather he was ferrying certain gratuitous passengers which was not permissible, accordingly, he himself being responsible for the accident, the amount could not have been saddled on the appellant. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that ample evidence was led before the Claims Tribunal whereas the negligence of the driver of the PAC Truck being driven rashly and negligently was established. In such circumstances, there could be no averment nor there is any material on record to indicate that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal suffers from any error and moreover since the appeal is pending before the court since2011, the claimants respondents have not received the compensation. It is urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material on records, it would indicate that as per the contention of the claimants, it was alleged that one Sri Subhash Chand was driving an ambulance on 18.04.2001 and around 11:30 at night, he had taken the said ambulance for participating in a function held by the employer. At around 12:45 AM on the Faizabad-Lucknow Highway near Village Mathura, the offending truck bearing No. UP 41-0922 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the ambulance and the impact was so great that the ambulance went off the road and fell in a nearby ditch. It is in the aforesaid accident that the driver of the ambulance namely Subhash Chand died on the spot and in respect of the said accident, the Claim Petition No. 135 of 2008 came to be filed. A claim petition was contested by the appellants and upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed five issues. Primarily, the issue no. (i) is important as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant relates to the negligence as to whether it is the appellant or even the deceased responsible for the accident. In this regard, if the findings of the Tribunal while dealing with issue no. (i) and (iv) is considered, it would indicate that the claimants had examined Sri Indrajeet who was an eye-witness, the factum of the accident was not disputed. The explanation was given that the accident occurred upon attempt of overtaking the vehicle, however, the fact remains that in so far as the foundational facts regarding the occurrence of the accident is concerned, that is not disputed but rather admitted. The Tribunal also noticed that from the statement of the other witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and taking their depositions viz. a viz. the statement recorded of Sri Indrajeet who was the driver of the offending vehicle PAC truck, if found that in respect of the said accident, a First Information Report was also lodged wherein the same driver i.e. Sri Indrajeet was found involved and he was charge sheeted. It is in this context that the findings regarding the negligence were returned by the Tribunal. This Court does not find that there has been any palpable error committed by the Tribunal in appraising the evidence available on record to reach the conclusion of the negligence while dealing with issue nos. (1) and (iv), no perversity could have been pointed out by which it could persuade this Court to interfere in the instant appeal. No other point has been pressed, accordingly, this Court finds that the award dated 28.01.2025 passed by the MACT/ADJ, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 135 of 2008 does not suffer from any error, accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant while filing the instant appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents as per the award and the shortfall along with up to date interest shall also be made good by the appellant to the claimants-respondents as per the award within a period of 60 days from today. With the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench