Allahabad High Court
UDAI VEER SINGHversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE OC. LTD. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The trial court's judgment is upheld; the appellant's claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.
Summary
The appellant, a police constable, claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 from an insurance company for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident on 5 July 1998. He alleged that the accident occurred while he was on patrol duty and that he incurred medical expenses not reimbursed by the police department. The trial court rejected his claim, finding no evidence was produced to prove the accident or that he was on duty, and noting that his treatment costs had already been reimbursed. On appeal, the High Court examined the record and concurred that the appellant failed to adduce any proof of the accident or duty status. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant proved the occurrence of the motor accident.
- Whether the appellant proved he was on duty at the time of the accident.
- Whether the claim is barred by prior reimbursement of medical expenses by the police department.
- Whether the trial court's judgment should be set aside on evidentiary grounds.
Subjects
- motor accident
- insurance claim
- police employee
- evidence
- appeal dismissed
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1536 of 2006
Udai Veer Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
New India Assurance Oc. Ltd. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : P.K. Agarwal, Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Singh Parihar
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Aditya
Singh, learned counsel for respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the
judgment and award dated 24.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Court No. 7, Bareilly, in MACP No. 560 of 1998.
3. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an accident took
place on 05.07.98 at around 5:15 am in the morning when the appellant was
going on a motorcycle alongwith his partner Sant Lal on Road from
Pachaumi to Faridpur, and reached near Hotel Pachaumi within the circle of
Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly when the rashly and negligently
driven Maruti No. UP-25D/1646 knocked down the Motorcycle No. by
which the appellant sustained serious injuries. Learned counsel submitted
that the appellant was treated as Bareilly Hospital for treatment and was
further referred to Deepmala Hospital for further treatment where he
remained admitted and was operated on wherein a machine was inserted in
his right leg. It is further submitted that the appellant was employed as a
Sipahi in the Police Department wherein his monthly salary was Rs. 4000/-
per month. The claim was valued at Rs. 5,00,000 by the appellant, however,
the tribunal has erred in rejecting the appellant's claim by holding that no
evidence was adduced by the appellant/claimant to prove the accident, and
further that the amount spent by the appellant in his treatment has already
been reimbursed by Police Department, and therefore, the claim was
rejected.
4. It was submitted that the appellant was employed as a Sipahi at the
Police Department at the time of accident and his income per month was Rs.
4000/- per month and due to the said accident, the appellant had to undergo
mental and physical trauma. It is further submitted that the appellant at the
time of accident was on his patrol duty with his partner, and therefore, was
FAFO No. 1536 of 2006
2
injured while discharging his duties. It is also submitted that as far as
insufficient evidence regarding the accident is concerned, it is brought to the
notice of the court, that 19.01.2006 was fixed for the adducing the evidence,
however, the counsel for the petition pleaded for the case to be fixed before
the Lok Adalat, thereafter, the counsel did not attend the case in the belief
that the case would have been fixed before the Lok Adalat and further since
the case was already under negotiation with the Insurance Company, the
papers were were with the Insurance Company and therefore, the same could
not be filed before the Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that neither
any evidence to prove the fact of the accident was adduced by the appellant,
nor any evidence regarding the fact that the appellant had been using his
motorcycle for the discharge of his duties was adduced by the appellant.
Further, it is submitted that the expenses incurred by the appellant during the
course of his treatment at the hospital has already been reimbursed by the
Police Department. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court is based on
correct appreciation of evidences on record and therefore, requires no
interference.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is
evident from the records that no evidence whatsoever, has been adduced by
the appellant to prove the factum of the accident or the fact that he was on
his duty at the time of the accident.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences on
record, this court is of the view that the judgment of the Trial Court is based
on the facts available on record and thereby requires no interference.
8. The present appeal is dismissed.
September 25, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…