Vishesh Kumar Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.

Vishesh Kumar vs Shanti Devi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 29, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/489262

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/489262
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Sudhir Narain and; V.M. Sahai, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 29, 2001
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishesh Kumar

Respondent

Shanti Devi and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1(2002)ACC507

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and the evidence on record recorded its finding in favour of the claimant-respondents that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter in question resulting into the death of nepal singh. the tribunal further found that the driver had valid licence and the licence was renewed before the accident had taken place and awarded rs. 30,000/- to the claimant-respondents as compensation. this order has been challenged in this appeal.3. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact the insurance company (respondent no. 3) was liable to pay the amount as the vehicle in question was insured with it. this point was also urged before the tribunal. the tribunal has recorded a finding that the driving licence, which was produced before it, was a forged and fictitious document. the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged this finding recorded by the tribunal. considering this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and on the basis of the evidence placed before us, we do not find that the finding recorded by the tribunal is erroneous in law.4. in view of the above observations, we do not find any merit in this appeal.5. this appeal is accordingly dismissed.6. rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants in this court shall be remitted by the registry of this court to the motor accident claims tribunal concerned within one month from today for payment/adjustment of the amount payable by the appellant to the claimant-respondents.

Full Judgment

Sudhir Narain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah dated 6.8.2001 awarding Rs. 1,30,000/- to the claimant-respondents as compensation.

2. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that on 8.8.1999 at about 5.00 p.m. while the deceased Nepal Singh was sitting in front of his house, scooter No. UP 83B/8154 being driven by the appellant, dashed against the deceased Nepal Singh due to which he received serious head injuries and died on the way to hospital. He left behind him his widow and one minor son who were solely dependant upon him. He was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month from the sale of buffalo milk. The appellant, who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, contested the claim petition denying that he was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 3) alleged that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter and further that as the policy and driving licence were still to be verified it was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant-respondents. The Tribunal after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and the evidence on record recorded its finding in favour of the claimant-respondents that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter in question resulting into the death of Nepal Singh. The Tribunal further found that the driver had valid licence and the licence was renewed before the accident had taken place and awarded Rs. 30,000/- to the claimant-respondents as compensation. This order has been challenged in this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in fact the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) was liable to pay the amount as the vehicle in question was insured with it. This point was also urged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driving licence, which was produced before it, was a forged and fictitious document. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged this finding recorded by the Tribunal. Considering this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant and on the basis of the evidence placed before us, we do not find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous in law.

4. In view of the above observations, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

5. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

6. Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants in this Court shall be remitted by the Registry of this Court to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned within one month from today for payment/adjustment of the amount payable by the appellant to the claimant-respondents.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Vishesh Kumar vs Shanti Devi and ors. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge Sudhir Narain and; V.M. Sahai, JJ.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles