High CourtsDivision Bench(2009) 08 AHC CK 0282

Shambhu Dayal vs Safi Ahmad Shekh

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 12 August 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Uma Nath Singh, J · Devendra Kumar Arora, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 386 words
1.

This F.A.F.O arises out of an award dated 3.9.2008, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Case No. 76 of 2007, whereby claim petition of appellant Shambhu Dayal was rejected on the sole ground that no definite medical evidence could be produced before the Tribunal to establish that the claimant suffered injuries in his leg.

2.

However, the appellant has filed medical evidence as also a copy of G.D entry to show that soon after the accident at 4 a.m, he received initial treatment in Primary Health Centre, Sidhauli, Sitapur at 5-30 a.m on the date of accident, after covering a distance of one kilometer from the place of accident.

3.

According to learned Counsel, the appellant suffered serious injuries while he was going on a bicycle, which was hit by a pick-up vehicle, which lost its balance after a calf appeared on the road. Even after hitting the vehicle of injured, the offending vehicle also dashed against a truck, leading to accidental injuries to four persons sitting therein, who have also filed their claim petitions, which are still pending before the Tribunal.

4.

Looking to the materials on record, which could not be brought to notice of the Tribunal for one reason or the other, we think that the Tribunal need be directed to consider these materials afresh and then to pass orders in claim petition. As the claim petitions of other four injured claimants are still pending, this petition can also be decided and disposed of with them. On being asked, Learned Counsel for Insurance Company also does not have any serious ground to oppose this suggestion.

5.

In view of all the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned award dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Tribunal and remit the case to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration on merit after hearing parties and giving them proper opportunity. This being an old case, the claim petition shall be decided by the Tribunal as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receiving a copy of this order with records of the case.

6.

This F.A.F.O stands disposed of with a direction to the Registrar of this Court to remit the record of this case to the Tribunal for compliance of the directions contained in the order.