# Sanjay Kumar Sadwani & Anr v. M/S Ramlal & Sons & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 261
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-31
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1519 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-sadwani-anr-v-m-s-ramlal-sons-ors-46262
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has to be
decided with all preponderance of probability
and on taking holistic approach in such matters.
(Para 14)

Appeal Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Sanjay Kumar Sadwani & Anr. Vs. M/S Ramlal & Sons & Ors.
261
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment be passed.

10. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total amount
of interest, accrued on the principal amount
of compensation has to be apportioned in
every financial year to financial year basis
and if the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
taxable
limits,
insurance company/owner is/are entitled to
deduct appropriate amount under the head of
'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s
194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of
this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant
to withdraw the amount without producing
the certificate from the concerned Income-
Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) while
disbursing the amount.

11. In view of the above, the appeal
is partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. The
respondent-Insurance
Company
shall
deposit the amount within a period of 12
weeks from today with interest at the rate
of 7.5% from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the amount is deposited.
The amount already deposited be deducted
from the amount to be deposited.

12.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Registrar General is requested
to forward the Judgment to learned
Presiding Authority of the Tribunal so that
such glaring errors are not committed in
future.
----------
(2021)10ILR A261
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO No. 1519 of 2020

Sanjay Kumar Sadwani & Anr....Appellants
Versus
M/S Ramlal & Sons & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pawan Kumar Singh

(A) Appeal - The claim petition under the
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has to be
decided with all preponderance of probability
and on taking holistic approach in such matters.
(Para 14)

Appeal Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sunita & ors. Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & anr. 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190

2. Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
ors. 2018 LawSuit (SC) 303

3. Parshuram Pal Vs Ram Lakhan 2014 (1) TAC
621

4. Jai Prakash Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2010) 2 SCC 607
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & anr. (2019) 2 SCC 186

6. Anita Sharma & ors. Vs The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr. 2021 (1) SCC 171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for appellant and Sri
Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 22.07.2020 and the decree
dated
29.09.2020
passed
by
Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No.1153 of 2014 (Sanjay Kumar
Sadwani and another Vs. M/s Ramlal and
others) whereby the claim petition filed by
the claimant-appellants has been dismissed.

3. Factual data as culled out from the
record will go to show that the deceased was
not tort feasor. Factual data as revealed from
the record is that on the fateful day the
deceased along with his friend wanted to go
for a ride at night though on the date of the
night the driver of the car drove the vehicle
rashly and negligently and the car turned
turtle and due to this accident occurred in the
night on 05.09.2014. Unfortunately the death
of only son of the claimant occurred on
11.09.2014 after being treated in the hospital.

4. The claimants instituted the claim
seeking compensation. The father of the
deceased d eposed though as P.W.1 and
one Raman Deep Katariya as P.W. 2.

5. The P.W.2 Ramadeep Kataria was
himself travelling in the car with the
deceased he was an eye witness of the
incident and appeared before the Tribunal
and established the factum of accident
having taken place but the learned Tribunal
without any rebuttal from opposite side
disbelieved the factum of the accident and
straight way rejected the claim petition.

6. The driver and owner of the vehicle
have disputed the facts as alleged in the
claim petition. The insurance company has
lastly filed its reply of rebuttal contending
therein that the vehicle was not insured
with them. The respondent no.3 Vishal
Arora filed its reply and contended that
accident did not occur due to his negligence
or because of it. The tribunal has framed as
far as four issued but decided issue nos. 1
and 4 against the claimants and dismissed
the claim petition.

7. The tribunal while dismissing the
claim petition recorded finding of fact
which is based on conjecture and surmises
holding that it was the duty of the friends of
the deceased, who were sitting with him to
inform about the accident to the concerned
police station.

8. he learned counsel for the appellants
has placed reliance in the case Sunita and
others
Vs.
Rajasthan
State
Road
Transport Corporation and another
[2019 LawSuit (SC) 190] and Mangla
Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
and others [2018 LawSuit (SC) 303].

9. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for respondent has contended that
the judgment which is assailed cannot be
found fault with as it is unbelievable how
the person travelling alone sustained
10 All. Sanjay Kumar Sadwani & Anr. Vs. M/S Ramlal & Sons & Ors.
263
injuries rather fatal. The postmortem report
is also silent about the same.

10. The Tribunal has erred on facts
while deciding the issue of delay in lodging
the FIR but the factum of delay has been
clearly explained by the claimants stating
therein that just after the accident, they
took the deceased to the hospital where he
was remain admitted for six days and
during this interregnum period the claimant
was busy in providing best treatment to his
only son so that the life of his son could be
saved. Ultimately, they could not saved the
life of his son and he succumbed to the
injuries but the learned Tribunal has
ignored all these facts and has illegally
rejected the claim of the claimants.

11. It is admitted position that the
deceased son of the claimants' remained
hospitalized for about six days. The medical
certificate as well as documentary evidence
also go to show the factum of accident. It
appears that learned Tribunal has been over
hyper technical while rejecting the claim of
the claimants. Had not it been a cause of
collision the respondent would not have filed
its reply disputing his presence also. The
charge-sheet was laid against the vehicle of
the driver. The first information report was
belated because of the reason that the father
of the deceased was busy with the care of his
own son who was battling for life.

12. The decisions on which reliance has
been placed would permit us to hold that the
death was caused due to the injuries which
the deceased had sustained when the Car
turned turtled. The FIR was lodged on
11.09.2014 and that the deceased was shifted
to the hospital where he breathed his last on
26.09.2014. The deceased was non tort
feasor. The evidence of P.W.2 has not been
believed. The Tribunal has given reasons that
three friends of the deceased did not file any
report and that on 05.09.2014 at 1.00 AM the
deceased whether was in the vehicle or not
was not known. The learned Tribunal has
heavily relied on the decision in the case of
Parshuram Pal Vs. Ram Lakhan, 2014 (1)
TAC 621, which according to us is
misreading of factual data. The documentary
evidence produced goes to show that the
charge-sheet which was laid on the medico
legal report also shows that one Ankit
Sadwani was also brought and it was reported
that his condition was critical as he was in a
vehicle which hit on a pole.

13.

The
Tribunal
has
further
misdirected itself in brushing aside the factual
data. The judgment of Jai Prakash Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010)
2 SCC 607 where the detail guidelines are
given the Tribunal should have before
rejecting the claim petition on minor
contradictions ought to have considered the
evidence of eye witnesses, which was such,
which brought home the facts alleged in the
claim petition.

14. The recent judgments of the Apex
Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. and
another (2019) 2 SCC 186 and Anita
Sharma and others Vs. The New India
Assurance
Company
Limited
and
another 2021 (1) SCC 171 will also not
permit us to concur with the Tribunal that
on hyper technical and cryptic manner in
which
the
claim
petition
has
been
dismissed, cannot be permitted. The claim
petition under the provisions of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 has to be decided with
all preponderance of probability and on
taking holistic approach in such matters.

15. Thus in view of the decisions of
Apex Court and the injury on the temporal
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bone and the postmortem report will permit
us to hold that the vehicle was involved in
the accident and that the deceased died due
to accidental injuries, as a recent matter we
do hesitate to decide the quantum and other
aspects, hence the Tribunal is directed to
decide the same, as expeditiously as
possible but not later than 31st of
December, 2021.

16. We are thankful to the counsel for
the parties who have assisted the Court in
disposing of this appeal finally.

17. Let record of court below be sent
back to the concerned Tribunal.
----------
(2021)10ILR A264
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 16.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO No. 2253 of 2015
With
FAFO No. 2507 of 2015

Israt Jahan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Archit Mehrotra, Sri Atul
Kumar
Srivastava,
Sri
Sushil
Kumar
Mehrotra

(A) Quantum of Compensation - The total
compensation payable was calculated in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi.
(Para 10)

Appeals Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kishan Gopal & anr Vs Lala & ors. (2014) 1
Supreme Court Cases 244

2. Rajendra Singh & ors. Vs National Insurance
Co. Ltd. 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 411

3. Nagma Bano Vs Harish Chandar Gupta & 3
ors. 2017 LawSuit (All) 4510

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & ors. 2020 (3) TAC 6
(SC)

5. Saiyyad Azadar Husain Vs Swami Viveka
Nand Vidhyashram & anr. FAFO No. 2235 of
2014

6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 (followed)

7. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

8. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal 2012 (1) GLH (SC)
442

9. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 (2) GLH 291

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri S.K.
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Insurance Company in both the
appeals.

2. Both these appeals challenge the
Judgment and award dated 22.5.2015
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claim
Tribunal/Special Judge SC/ST, District
Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal')
in
Motor
Accident
Claim