B.P.MISHRA Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE [VII] RAEBARELI/M.A.C.TRIBUNAL
LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-228
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on January 28,2010

B.P.MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
Addl. District Judge [Vii] Raebareli/M.A.C.Tribunal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenge the order dated 7.5.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge (VII), Raebareli/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raebareli in Claim Petition No. 55 of 1999, Km. Khushbu v. B.P. Mishra and others. Heard Sri A.K. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. The factual matrix of the present case are to the effect that initially a claim petition has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, which was registered as Claim Petition No. 55 of 1999, Km. Khushbu v. B.P. Mishra and others before the Additional District Judge (VII), Raebareli/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raebareli (hereinafter referred as Tribunal').
(2.) Further, in brief the facts as stated in the claim petition are that on 23.9.1998 at about 7.30 P.M. an ambassador car having registration No. U.P. 32-T 4191 (vehicle) owned by the Estate Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle an accident had taken place near Bus Station Unchahar, District Raebareli on Allahabad Lucknow Highway as a result of which Km. Khushbu, who was at the relevant point of time 7 years old sustained grievous injury thereafter she was hospitalized for treatment and for the said purpose a huge amount had been expended by her parents as a result of which compensation amounting to Rs. 4,42,000/was claimed in the claim petition and following persons were impleaded as respondent Sri B.P. Mishra, Special Secretary, Planning Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and State of U.P. through Collector, Raebareli.
(3.) Sri B.P. Mishra, Special Secretary, Planning Department, of State of U.P., who was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the claim petition had filed an application on 3.2.2000 inter alia, stating therein that as he is neither owner of the vehicle nor the insurer so he is not necessary party in the dispute involved in the present case as such in view of Rule 207 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred as Rule) his name be deleted from the array of the respondents in the claim petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.