The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Faizabad v. Smt. Lalita Mishra and Others

Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 97 of 2001 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Faizabad Respondent :- Smt. Lalita Mishra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- Ravindra Nath Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai,Ravindra Nath Rai,Sanjay Kumar With Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 98 of 2001 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Faizabad Respondent :- Smt. Nazma Khatoon And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- Shahroze Khan With Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 99 of 2001 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Faizabad Respondent :- Mohd. Sharif And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Bahadur Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2Since, these three appeals arise out of same accident and involve common issues, therefore, these appeals are being decided together with this common judgement.

¶3The aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the appellant-insurance company against the award dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Basti (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MAC Nos.84 of 1998, 94 of 1998 and 95 of 1998 respectively.

¶4For convenience, the facts are being delineated from F.A.F.O. No.97 of 2001.

¶5Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant case, the appellant was insurer of jeep No.UP51B/2777 which collided with truck No.UP32A/1305 It is submitted that the evidence had come on record which established that the accident was result of sole negligence of driver of the truck. Accordingly, it is submitted that the tribunal has erred in law in holding 50% negligence of the driver of jeep insured with the appellant-insurance company. It is submitted that the finding of the tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶6Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record held negligence of driver of both the vehicles in the accident. It is submitted that the finding of the tribunal on the issue of negligence being a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

¶7Be that as it may, the tribunal in concluding the negligence of the driver of both the vehicle in the accident placed reliance upon the testimony of PW 2 who lodged the first information and also was an eye witness of the accident. According to the testimony of PW 2, the accident was result of negligence of drivers of the vehicles. The testimony of PW 2 was also corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has though tried to demonstrate that the finding of the tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence is perverse and against the record but could not succeed in doing so.

¶8Since, the finding of the tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence.

¶9For the reasons given above, all the appeals lack merit and are dismissed. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 SS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad