FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER U/S-173 M.V. ACT
Code:
Group:
District-Sultanpur
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
F.A.F.O.
No. of 2014
Prabhu Dayal and and other
-------
Appellants
Versus
Vinod Kumar Pandey@
Dhirendra Kumar and others
------ Respondents
INDEX
|
Sl.No. |
Particulars |
Page No. |
|
1. |
Memo of first Appeal |
|
|
2. |
Certified copy of Judgment
and award dated 24-01-2014 |
|
|
3. |
Application for interim
relief. |
|
|
4. |
Affidavit in support of
Application for interim relief. |
|
|
5. |
Certified copy formal decree |
|
|
6. |
Memo/Power |
|
(Vinod
Kumar Pandey)
Lucknow ADVOCATE
Date: Counsel
for the Appellants
Mobile No.9415381583
Code:
Group:
District-Sultanpur
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
F.A.F.O.
No. of 2014
1.
Prabhu DayalS/o Devi Prasad R/oVillage.Mahakhar pur Post Sujaulia
P.S. Kamlapur, District-Sultanpur.
2.
KamaleshS/o Chunna R/o Saray Kheri P.S.-Sidhauli District-Sultanpur.
------- Appellants
Versus
1. Vinod Kumar Pandey@ Dhirendra Kumar
2. Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Devendra Kumar Shukla @ Dhirendra Kumar
Both 1&2 R/o Village Rampur P.S. Ataria District Sultanpur.
3. Bajaj Alianz Genral Insurance Company Ltd. Halwasia Complex 4th Floor Habibulla State
Hazrat ganj Lucknow through its Branch Manager
------
Respondents
Valuation of Appeal-
1,27,500/- with 7% interest
Court
Fees Paid. 10/-
Statutory deposite-
First Appeal From order U/S-173 M.V. act.
Against the judgment and Award dated 24-01-2014 passed
by Sri Raj Kumar Bansal President Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Additional
Session Judge, Court No.-5, Sultanpur in Claim Petition No.93 of 2012 Vinod
Kumar Pandey@Dhirendra kumar & others VsPrabhu Dayal& others on the following amongst ground:-
GROUNDS
(A) Because the award passed by the tribunal is not
based on the evidence which is on record and is based on assumption and
presumptions.
(B) Because, the Learned Tribunal has failed to evaluate
the evidence on record.
(C) Because, the findings for award against the
appellants given by the Tribunal are preserve in the eyes of law.
(D) Because, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law and in
fact by awarding claim against the appellants.
(E) Because, there are major
contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses which was ignored
by the tribunal.
(F) Because, the vehicle of the
appellant was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and was
driven by the driver having a valid driving lenience to drive the same.
(G) Because, the vehicle of the
appellant was running on the road following the conditions of the Insurance
policy.
(H) Because, the tribunal has wrongly decide that the vehicle was not
running for agricultural use.
(I) Because, the D.W.-1has
specifically stated in his statement that he has beg the Tractor of the of the
appellant for taking Bhusa and no
accident has taken place by the vehicle which was ignored by the tribunal.
(J) Because, the PW-2 Pragya
shukla who has been examined as a eye witness of the incident stated in her statement
that her sister was sitting on the back of Cycle which was driven by the Raman and
the Tractor hit the cycle of Raman and her sister fell down and tractor passed
over her body but the post mortem report of the deceased reveals only two
injuries one abraded contusion 10 c.m. X 4 c.m. on the back of head and other
abraded contusion on the back of Rt. shoulder joint which was not possible as
per the allegation of P.W.-2
(K) Because, if the loaded tractor has passed over on the body of a
girl aged about 13 yrs. She does not received these type of injuries as
mentioned in the post mortem report and her whole body would be punctured as
such the statement P.W.2 as an eye witness is not reliable.
(L) Because, the learned tribunal
by believing the statement of P.W.-2 observed that the vehicle of the appellant
was not running following the insurance policy.
(N) Because, all the papers of
vehicle are valid at the time of alleged incident. As such no liability is
going on the appellant.
PRAYER
Wherefore,
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
admit the appeal and summon the Trial Court record and quash the impugned
judgment and award dated 24.01.2014 passed by, Additional District Judge/President M.A.C.T. Court
No.-5 Sultanpur passed in M.A.C.No. 93 of 2012,Vinod Kumar Pandey@ Dhirendra
kumar & others Vs Prabhu Dayal& Ohers.
Any
other relief which this Hon’ble court may deems fit & proper as the
circumstances of the case be also passed.
(Prabhakar Nath Mishra)
Advocate
Lucknow. (Vinod
Kumar Pandey)
Dated : April
2014 Advocate
Counsel for the appellants
Code:
Group:
District-Sultanpur
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
F.A.F.O.
No. of 2014
5 Rs Stamp
1.Prabhu DayalS/o Devi Prasad R/oVillage.Mahakhar pur Post Sujaulia
P.S. Kamlapur, District-Sultanpur.
2.KamaleshS/o Chunna R/o Saray Kheri P.S.-Sidhauli District-Sultanpur.
-------
Appellants
Versus
1. Vinod Kumar Pandey@ Dhirendra Kumar
2. Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Devendra Kumar Shukla @ Dhirendra Kumar
Both 1&2 R/o Village Rampur P.S. Ataria District Sultanpur.
3. Bajaj Alianz Genral Insurance Company Ltd.Halwasia Complex 4th Floor Habibulla State
Hazrat ganj Lucknow through its Branch Manager
------ Respondents
APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
For the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying
affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be
pleased to stay the execution of award dated 24-01-2014 during the pendency of
this appeal which would serve in the ends of justice.
(Prabhakar Nath Mishra)
Advocate
Lucknow. (Vinod Kumar Pandey)
Dated : April
2014 Advocate
Counsel
for the appellants
Code:
Group:
District-Sultanpur
In the Hon'ble
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow.
F.A.F.O.
No. of 2014
10 Rs Stamp, Photo, Coupan
1.Prabhu DayalS/o Devi Prasad R/oVillage.Mahakhar pur Post Sujaulia
P.S. Kamlapur, District-Sultanpur.
2.KamaleshS/o Chunna R/o Saray Kheri P.S.-Sidhauli District-Sultanpur.
-------
Appellants
Versus
1.Vinod Kumar Pandey@ Dhirendra Kumar
2.Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Devendra Kumar Shukla @ Dhirendra Kumar
Both 1&2 R/o Village RampurP.S. Ataria District Sultanpur
3. Bajaj Alianz
Genral Insurance Company Ltd.Halwasia Complex 4th Floor
Habibulla State Hazrat ganj Lucknow through its Branch Manager
------ Respondents
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPORT OF APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
I, Kamalesh aged about
years S/o Sri Chunna R/o Saray Kheri P.S.-Sidhauli District- Sultanpur,
by religion, Islam, by profession, Driver,by qualification…………. Do hereby
solemnly affirm on oath as under:
- That the deponent is the
appellant No. 2 himself in the above noted appeal and is doing pairvi on
behalf of appellant No. 1 and as such he is full conversant with facts and
circumstances of the case .
2. That the award passed by the tribunal is
not based on the evidence which is on record and is based on assumption and
presumptions.
3. That the Learned Tribunal has failed to
evaluate the evidence on record.
4. That the findings for award against the
appellants given by the Tribunal are preserve in the eyes of law.
5. That the Learned Tribunal has erred
in law and in fact by awarding claim against the appellants.
6. That there are major contradictions
in the statement of the prosecution witnesses which was ignored by the
tribunal.
7. That the vehicle of the appellant
was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and was driven by the
driver having a valid driving lenience to drive the same.
8. That the vehicle of the appellant
was running on the road following the conditions of the Insurance policy.
9. That the tribunal has
wrongly decide that the vehicle was not running for agricultural use.
10. That the D.W.-1has specifically stated in his statement that
he has beg the Tractor of the of the appellant for taking Bhusa and no accident has taken place by the vehicle which was
ignored by the tribunal.
11. That the PW-2 Pragya shukla who has been examined as a eye
witness of the incident stated in her statement that her sister was sitting on
the back of Cycle which was driven by the Raman and the Tractor hit the cycle
of Raman and her sister fell down and tractor passed over her body but the post
mortem report of the deceased reveals only two injuries one abraded contusion
10 c.m. X 4 c.m. on the back of head and other abraded contusion on the back of
Rt. shoulder joint which was not possible as per the allegation of P.W.-2
12. That if the loaded
tractor has passed over on the body of a girl aged about 13 yrs. She does not
received these type of injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report and her
whole body would be punctured as such the statement P.W.2 as an eye witness is
not reliable.
13. That the learned tribunal by believing the statement of
P.W.-2 observed that the vehicle of the appellant was not running following the
insurance policy.
14. That all the papers of vehicle are valid at the time of
alleged incident. As such no liability is going on the appellant.
Dated: Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
paras 1 to of this affidavit are true to my personal
knowledge and the contents of paras
……………… are believed to be true on the basis of record and the legal
advice received by the deponent. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed.
So help me God.
Dated: Deponent
I, identify the deponent
who has put his signature/L.T.I. before me on the basis of record produced by
him.
(Vinod
Kumar Pandey)
ADVOCATE
AOR No.-B/V 0839
Mobile No.9415381583
Solemnly affirmed before me on ……………….at …… a.m./p.m. by Kamalesh the
deponent who has been identified by Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate High
Court, Lucknow bench, Lucknow.
I, have satisfied myself by
examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this affidavit which
has been read over and explained to him by me.
OATH
COMMISSIONER
Comments
Post a Comment