# Smt. Usha Tiwari v. Jagdamba Prasad Trivedi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 710
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-31
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 992 of 2001
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-usha-tiwari-v-jagdamba-prasad-trivedi-ors-48578
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim petition - Xerox copy of driving
licence - Evidentiary value - Tribunal
refused to accept Xerox copy as evidence
- Permissibility - Claim dismissed on the
ground that the scribe of F.I.R. was not
examined on oath and that there are
minor contradictions in testimony of P.W.2
& P.W.3 - Validity challenged - High Court
overruled this kind of hyper technical
stand taken in dismissing the claim
petition, which is filed under the beneficial
piece of legislation - High Court recomputed the compensation by adding
40%
future
prospect
and
applying
multiplier of 17. (Para 5, 8, 13 and 19)

B. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Rash
and negligent driving - Term 'Negligence' -
Meaning - Principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' ,
when it can be applied - Negligence means
failure to exercise care towards others
which a reasonable and prudent person
would in a circumstance or taking action
which such a reasonable person would not.
Negligence can be both intentional or
accidental though it is normally accidental -
If the injury rather death is caused by
something owned or controlled by the
negligent party then he is directly liable
otherwise the principle of "res ipsa loquitur"
meaning thereby "the things speak for
itself" would apply. (Para 10)

C. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Principle of contributory negligence -
Scope and meaning - A person who either
contributes or is co author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place and that
amount
will
be
deducted
from
the
compensation payable to him if he is
injured and to legal representatives if he
dies in the accident. (Para 11)

Appeal allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation, the Police have filed a charge
sheet against the driver, which buttresses
the fact that it was the offending vehicle
that was involved in the accident.

39. The moot question here, as
already noticed, is that there is not shred
of evidence aliunde led on behalf of the
claimants to establish that the offending
vehicle was the one involved in the
accident. The Tribunal has, in the opinion
of this Court erred in holding the identity
of the vehicle established by ruling out
possibilities of a false implication. The
learned Judge has adopted what may be
called a method of elimination of sorts.
That, in the opinion of this Court, is a
wrong
approach
altogether.
Merely,
because the parties are not on inimical
terms and the fact that the vehicle was not
insured, cannot lead the Court to draw a
positive inference about the vehicle's
involvement in the absence of some
evidence
aliunde,
showing
that
involvement. This is not a case where
there is a mere delay in lodging the FIR,
but the involvement of the vehicle is
otherwise sufficiently established. Here, it
is not even remotely established. The
question about the vehicle being sold as
scrap or dismantled, is also irrelevant so
long as there is no positive evidence to
indicate its involvement. The fact that the
owner did not complain to the Police or
the Court that the number plate of his
vehicle was affixed to a different vehicle
is
also
of
no
consequence,
unless
involvement of the offending vehicle is
established by positive evidence. All these
circumstances would become material, if
some evidence were let in to show that it
was the offending vehicle that caused the
accident. Unfortunately, there is none
forthcoming.

40. On the evidence appearing here, it
is a hard case, where the accident has
turned a blind hit and run. The suffering of
the claimants is indeed one that evokes all
sympathy, but that cannot lead the Court to
order compensation from a party against
whom there is absolutely no evidence about
the involvement of his vehicle. The
claimants would have to rest content by
availing
their
remedy
under
Section
161(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
that is applicable in a case of hit and run.

41. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned judgment
and award passed by the Presiding Officer,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pilibhit is
set aside and the claim petition stands
dismissed. The statutory deposit made
before this Court shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by the appellants.

42. In case, the claimants prefer a
claim under Section 161 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, their case may be considered
in accordance with law giving due
allowance to the pendency of the present
proceedings.
----------
(2022)05ILR A710
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 992 of 2001

Smt. Usha Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
Jagdamba Prasad Trivedi & Ors.
 ...Respondents
5 All. Smt. Usha Tiwari Vs. Jagdamba Prasad Trivedi & Ors.
711
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.K. Porwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.C. Nigam, Sri Satyam Jaiswal

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim petition - Xerox copy of driving
licence - Evidentiary value - Tribunal
refused to accept Xerox copy as evidence
- Permissibility - Claim dismissed on the
ground that the scribe of F.I.R. was not
examined on oath and that there are
minor contradictions in testimony of P.W.2
& P.W.3 - Validity challenged - High Court
overruled this kind of hyper technical
stand taken in dismissing the claim
petition, which is filed under the beneficial
piece of legislation - High Court recomputed the compensation by adding
40%
future
prospect
and
applying
multiplier of 17. (Para 5, 8, 13 and 19)

B. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Rash
and negligent driving - Term 'Negligence' -
Meaning - Principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' ,
when it can be applied - Negligence means
failure to exercise care towards others
which a reasonable and prudent person
would in a circumstance or taking action
which such a reasonable person would not.
Negligence can be both intentional or
accidental though it is normally accidental -
If the injury rather death is caused by
something owned or controlled by the
negligent party then he is directly liable
otherwise the principle of "res ipsa loquitur"
meaning thereby "the things speak for
itself" would apply. (Para 10)

C. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Principle of contributory negligence -
Scope and meaning - A person who either
contributes or is co author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place and that
amount
will
be
deducted
from
the
compensation payable to him if he is
injured and to legal representatives if he
dies in the accident. (Para 11)

Appeal allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Karn.VsSatish; 2000 C.A.C. 408 SC
2. United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anwari & ors.
2000 (2) TAC 789 SC
3. First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012;
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.
Renu Singh & ors. decided on 19.7.2016
4. Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & ors. Vs The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9
5. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & ors. 2019 (133) ALR 768
6. Anita Sharma Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd.; (2021) 1 SCC 171
7. C.MA. No. 1482 of 2017; Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Subbulakshmi & ors.
decided by Madras high Court
8. Puspabai Purshottam Udeshi Vs Ranjit
Ginning and Pressing Co.; 1977ACJ 343 (SC)
9. Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & ors. Vs The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd.; (2001) 2 SCC 9
10. Bithika Mazumdar & anr. Vs Sagar Pal & ors.
(2017) 2 SCC 748
11. F.A.F.O. No. 1999 of 2007; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ummida Begum &
ors.
12. F.A.F.O. No. 1404 of 1999; Smt. Ragini Devi
& ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
decided on 17.4.2019
13. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi
& ors. 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093
14. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp.
& anr.; 2009 LawSuit (SC)
15. A.VsPadma Vs Venugopal; 2012 (1) GLH
(SC) 442
16. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd; 2007(2) GLH 291
17. Review Application No. 1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001; Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
18. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. decided by Apex Court on
27.1.2022
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Porwal, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri Satyam
Jaiswal, learned Advocate, appearing for
Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the
respondent-National Insurance Company
and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
appellant-claimant,
challenges
the
judgment and order dated 30.3.2001 passed
by
the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/11th Additional District Judge,
Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.333 of 1992
rejecting the claim petition which was
preferred by the appellant-claimant.

3. The facts as culled out from the
record are that on 21.8.1992 at about 5.20
p.m., driver of a bus bearing No. UP 78
V1259 drove the bus rashly and negligently
and when he reached the place near Vijay
Nagar Crossroad, the bus ran over Anand
Tiwari who died instantaneously. The
deceased was 27 years of age at the time of
accident. The deceased was conductor of
vehicle bearing No. UP77/1912 owned by
Jasveer Singh and was earning Rs.2,000/- per
month and Rs.8,000/- was his income by
selling milk. The deceased left behind him
his parents, younger brother, his widow and
three children. He was the sole bread earning
person of his family. Respondent No.1 filed
his reply which was one of denial and hold
that the driver of the bus was not negligent.
The Tribunal raised five issues but answer the
same in the negative holding that the
claimants did no prove that the driver of the
bus was negligent.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that
the driver of the bus did not even step into
the witness box. The Tribunal took a stand
that it was not proved that the vehicle ran
over the deceased. While relying on the
decision of the Apex Court in State of
Karnataka v. Satish, 2000 C.A.C. 408
SC, the Tribunal held that it was necessary
for the claimants to prove the negligence of
the driver. The Tribunal held that the
witnesses did not narrate the correct story.
The Tribunal has relied on the decision in
United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anwari and
others, 2000 (2) TAC 789 SC and has
rejected the claim petition.

5. As far as issue of driving license is
concerned, from the record which we have
perused, it is clear that the driving license
was filed which was the valid driving
license but the Tribunal has held that the
driving license was a xerox copy which
cannot be accepted in evidence. While
deciding the issue no.4, the Tribunal held
that the matter is dismissed and, therefore,
no amount can be paid.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the Tribunal has rejected
the claim petition stating that the the
claimant had failed to prove her case, and
held that the accident occurred due to sole
negligence of the deceased, this finding of
the Tribunal is bad on the facts and law and
requires to be upturned by this Court.

7. As against this, learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that the
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim
petition as there are contradictions in the
statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and,
therefore, they have been rightly not
believed by the Tribunal. It is also
submitted that the deceased was solely
negligent for commission of accident and,
therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected
the claim petition.
5 All. Smt. Usha Tiwari Vs. Jagdamba Prasad Trivedi & Ors.
713

8. Issues which are required to be
adjudicated by us are (a) whether the
Tribunal has rightly held the deceased to be
solely negligent & whether the Tribunal
can dismiss the claim petition on the basis
that the scribe of F.I.R. was not examined
on oath
and
that
there
are
minor
contradictions in testimony of P.W.2 &
P.W.3; (b) if the dismissal is bad whether
the matter be relegated to the Tribunal or
compensation can be granted here.

9. While dealing with submission on
issue of negligence raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it would be
relevant to discuss the principles for
deciding contributory negligence and for
that
the
principles
for
considering
negligence will also have to be looked into.

10. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental though
it is normally accidental. More particularly,
it connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

11. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or is
co author of the accident would be liable
for his contribution to the accident having
taken place and that amount will be
deducted from the compensation payable to
him if he is injured and to legal
representatives if he dies in the accident.

12. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And
Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden
of proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to
conclusion that vehicle was being driven by
him rashly as well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction of roads or at a
turning of the road. It is also provided that
driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be
regarded to some extent as coming within
the principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (sec.110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
5 All. Smt. Usha Tiwari Vs. Jagdamba Prasad Trivedi & Ors.
715
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

emphasis added

13. The F.I.R. categorically goes to
show that the vehicle dashed with the
deceased who was on his feet, causing
instantaneous death. The scribe of F.I.R.
was a police officer. We are placing
reliance on the decisions in (a) Smt.
Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs. The
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2
SCC 9., (b) Vimla Devi and others Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited
and others, 2019 (133) ALR 768; (c)
Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171 and on the
decision of Madras High Court. The
decision in Madras High Court in Reliance
General
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
Vs.
Subbulakshmi and Others, passed in
C.MA. No. 1482 of 2017 [C.M.P. No.
7919 of 2017. (CMA Sr. No. 76893 of
2016)] and the decision referred in the
said case namely Puspabai Purshottam
Udeshi Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing
Co., 1977ACJ 343 (SC), would be
applicable in such matters where Tribunal
takes hyper technical stand in dismissing
the claim petition which is filed under the
beneficial piece of legislation. Despite the
fact that judgment of Smt. Kaushnuma
Begum And Ors vs. The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9 was
very much in vogue, the Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition holding that
there are minor discrepancies in the
statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3.

14. The Tribunal has recorded
contradictory findings, at one stage, the
Tribunal holds that the place where the
accident occurred was crowded place with
human beings and, therefore, driver of the
bus could not have driven the vehicle
rashly and negligently and at the same time
it holds that the accident is not proved and
that the negligence of the deceased who
was on feet and standing on road was
attributed and claim petition was dismissed.

15. If we go by the finding of facts
and the evidence on record and even if we
hold deceased to be standing in the middle
of the road, the fact that the accident
occurred and the fatal injuries which the
deceased had sustained and which proved
fatal as per the postmortem report, it can be
safely said that the driver of the vehicle
could have been more cautious if it was
thickly populated place. Hence, we are
unable to concur with the judgment of the
Tribunal. We hold that the deceased was
also contributory to the accident having
taken place but to the tune of 10%.

16. Decisions in Smt. Kaushnuma
Begum And Ors vs. The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9.,
Vimla Devi and others Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and others,
2019 (133) ALR 768; Anita Sharma v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1
SCC 171 will not permit the Court to
concur with the finding of facts of the
Tribunal.

17. The next issue which arises is that
as matter has remained pending for 21
years and the record and proceedings are
before this Court, whether the matter be
remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the
quantum of compensation or the same be
decided here as the Tribunal has decided all
the issues also? The answer is in the
affirmative as per the judgments of the
Apex Court in Bithika Mazumdar and
another Vs. Sagar Pal and others, (2017)
2 SCC 748 and of this Court in F.A.F.O.
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 1999 of 2007 (Oriental Insurance
Company Limited vs. Smt. Ummida
Begum and others) and in F.A.F.O. No.
1404 of 1999 (Smt. Ragini Devi and
others Vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited and another) decided
on 17.4.2019 where in it has been held that
if the record is with the appellate Court, it
can
decide
compensation
instead
of
relegating the parties to the Tribunal.

18. The deceased, according to
learned counsel for the appellant, was
serving as conductor in a private bus and it
is stated was earning Rs.2,000/- per month.
However, there is no record to prove the
said fact. Therefore, we consider his
income to be Rs.1250/- per month. To
which, as the deceased was below 40 years,
40% be added towards future loss of
income in view of the decision in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. The
deceased being in the age bracket of 26-30
years of age, the multiplier applicable
would be 17 in view of the decision in
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another,
2009
LawSuit
(SC).
The
deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased
would be 1/2 as the claim petition was filed
only by the widow of the deceased. The
submission of Sri Porwal that there are
other dependents also and, therefore,
deduction would be more than 1/2, cannot
be countenanced. Further, as the accident
occurred in the year 1992, Rs.40,000/- will
be granted to the appellant-claimant under
the head of non-pecuniary heads.

19. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellant is computed herein
below:

i. Monthly Income: Rs.1250/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.500/-

iii. Total income : Rs.1250 +500
= Rs.1750/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2
towards personal expenses : Rs.875/-

v. Annual income : Rs.875 x 12 =
Rs.10,500/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 17

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.10,500 x 17 = Rs.1,78,500/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs40,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.2,18,500/-

x. Total compensation payable to
the claimants after apportionment of 10%
negligence on the part of deceased :
Rs.1,96,650/-

20. The above amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of
decision of the Tribunal as the appeal has
remained pending for no fault of the
Insurance Company. Though the Insurance
Company
appeared
recently,
for
the
remaining period, they would be liable to
pay interest at the rate of 3%, reason being,
the appellants' counsel also did not take
care to see that the matter was heard
expeditiously. It was only after the Court
directed that all old matter be listed, the
matter came to be listed and, therefore, the
aforesaid direction is give.

21. In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed. Judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal is set aside. The Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount within
12 weeks from today with interest as
awarded herein above.

22. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I.
717
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment be passed by Tribunal..

23. 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
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
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.

24.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunals in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and judgment of A.V. Padma
(supra). The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.

25. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As
20 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)05ILR A717
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1043 of 1992

Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.O.I. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ramesh Singh, Sri K.L. Grover

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri C.S. Chaturvedi

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim - claim
petition dismissed - Tribunal rejected the
claim petition holding that it was not
proved that the accident occurred with the
military
jeep
in
question
-
F.I.R.
categorically mentions about the truck -
Tribunal disbelieved PW1 and PW2 only on
the ground that there was a delay in filing
the F.I.R. - Held - driver of the truck
nowhere stated that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident - Filing of final
report is not a conclusive proof - Just
because final report was filed & protest
petition was not filed, it does not mean
that the vehicle was not involved in the