Kunwar Singh Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D. and S.J. and ors.

Kunwar Singh vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D. and S.J. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Oct 27, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495488

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/495488
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: V.M. Sahai and ;B.A. Zaidi, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 27, 2005
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 67713 of 2005
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]. Section 302; [M.C. Jain, R.C. Deepak & K.K. Misra, JJ] Murder Plea as to accused being minor School register and transfer certificate not proved before Court according to law Held, It has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and cir...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kunwar Singh

Advocate Nigamendra Shukla, ;A.B. Saran and ;Parmatma Rat, Advs.

Respondent

Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D. and S.J. and ors.

Advocate None

Legal References

Cases Referred: Kunwar Singh v. Mahavir Singh and Anr.
Reported In: 2006(2)AWC1641

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad.....of the vehicle, the amount be not paid to the claimant, in view propounded by the apex court in case of national insurance co. ltd. v. challa bharthamma and ors. air 2004 sc 4882.3. we have gone through the aforesaid decision of the apex court. the decision is confined to its own facts and has no binding effect, and cannot be regarded as conclusive on the point, as in the case before the apex court, the insurer was held not liable in law to pay the amount, but it was directed to satisfy the award. the apex court took the view that the owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount before the amount was released and in case, the amount is found due from him and is paid by the insurance company, then he will repay the same to the insurance company. these are not the facts of this case. here, the amount has been awarded against the insurance company and it has been found liable to pay the amount. while deciding issue no. 3, it has been observed by the tribunal that since driving licence has not been produced by the owner of the vehicle, it would be open to the insurance company to recover this amount from the owner. but no such direction has been given in the operative part of the order passed by the tribunal. therefore, the tribunal was not correct in refusing to release the amount in favour of the petitioner in absence of any security furnished by the owner. in these circumstances, the tribunal is directed to release the amount to the claimant.4. in the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the order dated 22.7.2005, passed by motor accident claims tribunal, meerut, annexure-5 to the writ petition, is quashed. the tribunal is directed to release the amount to the parties as per the award dated 30.5.2005, passed in motor accident claim no. 779 of 2000, kunwar singh v. mahavir singh and anr. within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the tribunal.

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.M. Sahai and B.A. Zaidi, JJ.

1. We have heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. B. Saran learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Parmatma Rai, advocate.

2. In Motor Accident Claim No. 779 of 2000, Kunwar Singh v. Mahavir Singh and Anr. the Tribunal made an award on 30.5.2005 partly allowing the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,04,500 alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment and New India Assurance Company was held liable to pay the amount, and Sri Kunwar Singh and Smt. Khema Devi were entitled to receive half of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed that New India Assurance Company has deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal on 17.6.2005 and the award of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the insurance company. The petitioner applied before the Tribunal that amount awarded be released. On 27.7.2005 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned order to the effect that since New India Assurance Company has moved an application that till security is taken from the owner of the vehicle, the amount be not paid to the claimant, in view propounded by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharthamma and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4882.

3. We have gone through the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. The decision is confined to its own facts and has no binding effect, and cannot be regarded as conclusive on the point, as in the case before the Apex Court, the insurer was held not liable in law to pay the amount, but it was directed to satisfy the award. The Apex Court took the view that the owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount before the amount was released and in case, the amount is found due from him and is paid by the insurance company, then he will repay the same to the insurance company. These are not the facts of this case. Here, the amount has been awarded against the insurance company and it has been found liable to pay the amount. While deciding issue No. 3, it has been observed by the Tribunal that since driving licence has not been produced by the owner of the vehicle, it would be open to the insurance company to recover this amount from the owner. But no such direction has been given in the operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in refusing to release the amount in favour of the petitioner in absence of any security furnished by the owner. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the claimant.

4. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 22.7.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the parties as per the award dated 30.5.2005, passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 779 of 2000, Kunwar Singh v. Mahavir Singh and Anr. within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Tribunal.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2005 Same Parties Kunwar Singh vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D. and S.J. a... Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge V.M. Sahai and ;B.A. Zaidi, JJ.

Motor Vehicles