Yogendra Prasad Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.

Yogendra Prasad vs Vinod Kumar and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 11, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510521

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/510521
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.K. Agrawal, J.
Decided On: Jan 11, 2000
Case Number: M.A. No. 1154 of 1999
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yogendra Prasad

Advocate Amit Awasthy, Adv.

Respondent

Vinod Kumar and ors.

Advocate Umed Shrivastava and ;S.K. Agrawal, Advs.

Legal References

Reported In: II(2000)ACC779; 2002ACJ361

Excerpt

.....order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. - it was, however, observed by the learned tribunal that the claimant has failed to prove that offending tractor was insured by respondent no. 69,000 (rupees sixty-nine thousand) from the appellant as well as respondent no......nos. cpa 389 and cpa 390 were duly insured by the respondent no. 3, new india assurance co. ltd. for the period from 11.12.89 to 10.12.1990. the respondent no. 3 was given an opportunity to verify from its record as to whether the offending tractor- trolley was actually insured by it or not. learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 states that since the record regarding the said insurance is missing it is not possible for him to admit the issuance of the above cover note and that for the same reason he is also not in a position to controvert that the offending tractor and trolley was insured by respondent no. 3 as above.5. learned counsel for the appellant has in the above context submitted that not only the original insurance cover note has been filed by him in the record of the tribunal, but there is a letter from the allahabad bank dated 24.11.1999, copy of which has been filed by him, which states that the bank had given loan on the said tractor after verifying that the said tractor was insured with new india assurance co. ltd.6. in view of above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the absence of any rebuttal by the respondent no. 3, it should be presumed and held that the tractor was at the relevant time of accident insured and its risk covered by respondent no. 3. therefore, it has been prayed that the respondent no. 3 should also be made liable for payment of amount of compensation and to reimburse the same to the appellant owner.7. since there is a cover note which has already been referred to by the letter dated 24.11.1999, issued by the allahabad bank, it appears that the claimant has placed on record adequate documentary proof to show that the offending tractor was duly insured on the date of accident, i.e., on 27.4.1990. the respondent no. 3 is not in a position to deny the same. hence, inference in favour of the appellant owner should be drawn.8. therefore, liability for payment of amount of award deserves to be.....

Full Judgment

V.K. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 15.4.1999 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 69 of 1998, by Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mauganj, District Rewa, whereby an award granting total compensation of Rs. 69,000 in favour of the petitioner claimant-respondent No. 1 has been passed, as against the owner of the vehicle, the appellant.

2. The allegations were that the mother of petitioner-respondent No. 1 was sitting on the side of the road selling vegetables on 27.4.1990. The tractor-trolley owned and driven by the appellant ran over her, resulting in her sustaining grievous injuries which despite treatment led to her death. It was also alleged that the respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the vehicle.

3. Learned Tribunal found that Tedhi Bai, the mother of claimant-respondent No. 1, Vinod Kumar, had sustained fatal injuries in the accident. It was, however, observed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant has failed to prove that offending tractor was insured by respondent No. 3. Accordingly, though the respondent No. 3 was exonerated from liability. However, liability to pay compensation was fastened on the owner-driver of the tractor-trolley, the appellant herein.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that he has already filed the cover note dated 29.11.89 in the record of the Tribunal. That cover note bearing No. 0050679 discloses that the above tractor and trolley Nos. CPA 389 and CPA 390 were duly insured by the respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 11.12.89 to 10.12.1990. The respondent No. 3 was given an opportunity to verify from its record as to whether the offending tractor- trolley was actually insured by it or not. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 states that since the record regarding the said insurance is missing it is not possible for him to admit the issuance of the above cover note and that for the same reason he is also not in a position to controvert that the offending tractor and trolley was insured by respondent No. 3 as above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has in the above context submitted that not only the original insurance cover note has been filed by him in the record of the Tribunal, but there is a letter from the Allahabad Bank dated 24.11.1999, copy of which has been filed by him, which states that the bank had given loan on the said tractor after verifying that the said tractor was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

6. In view of above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in the absence of any rebuttal by the respondent No. 3, it should be presumed and held that the tractor was at the relevant time of accident insured and its risk covered by respondent No. 3. Therefore, it has been prayed that the respondent No. 3 should also be made liable for payment of amount of compensation and to reimburse the same to the appellant owner.

7. Since there is a cover note which has already been referred to by the letter dated 24.11.1999, issued by the Allahabad Bank, it appears that the claimant has placed on record adequate documentary proof to show that the offending tractor was duly insured on the date of accident, i.e., on 27.4.1990. The respondent No. 3 is not in a position to deny the same. Hence, inference in favour of the appellant owner should be drawn.

8. Therefore, liability for payment of amount of award deserves to be fastened on respondent No. 3 also and the appeal deserves to be allowed to the above extent.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified and it is directed that the claimant-respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to recover the amount of award of Rs. 69,000 (rupees sixty-nine thousand) from the appellant as well as respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. They would be liable to pay the above amount of award jointly and severally. If the amount of award of Rs. 69,000 has already been paid to or recovered by the respondent-claimant by the appellant, he will be entitled to get reimbursement thereof from respondent No. 3. However, since the appellant has taken belated action regarding the cover note and proof of insurance of the offending vehicle, by not taking appropriate steps in that regard before the Tribunal, the amount of interest granted by the impugned award shall not be payable by the respondent No. 3 as has been prayed by its learned Counsel. The costs of this appeal as incurred shall be borne by parties.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Yogendra Prasad vs Vinod Kumar and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge V.K. Agrawal, J.

Motor Vehicles