- (1.) ACCORDING to learned counsel the petitioner was initially appointed as Trainee Munsif upon selection by the U.P. Public Service Commission and joined at the Administrative Training Institute at Nainital on 06.04.1981. The petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Sewa in the year 1989 and was given further promotion to the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the year 2001 in U.P. Higher Judicial Service. The petitioner alleges that he has an unblemished service record.
(2.) WHILE working as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Lucknow a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 520 of 2003 (Radhika Devi and others Vs Sanjay Kumar and another) came before him wherein the claimant sought compensation for the death of her husband Ram Dev as a consequence of an accident that occurred on 19.09.2003 within Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow with a Truck bearing no. U.P. -32/Z - 3652. The claimant had claimed that her deceased husband Ram Dev was an employee of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 5601/ -. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the widow and other heirs. After exchange of pleadings issues were framed by the Tribunal which are quoted as here under: - XXX XXX XXX
(3.) THE record indicates that after framing of the issues on 17.12.2004 when the matter was taken up on 27.05.2006 Sri V.K. Srivastava who was counsel for the claimant made a statement that he does not want to press issue no. 3. Such a statement of Sri V.K. Srivastava was noted by him in the ordersheet dated 27.05.2006. On the very same date the counsel for the Insurance Company namely Ms. Vishakha Gupta also made a note under her hand that she accepts issue nos. 1 and 2. Under such premise the petitioner who was the Presiding Officer of Court no. 8, Lucknow has passed the judgment and order dated 29.05.2006 in the said Claim Petition no. 520 of 2003. The said judgement was assailed by Smt. Radhika Devi the claimant in First Appeal From Order No. 679 of 2006 (Smt. Radhika Devi and others Vs Sri Sanjay Kumar and others) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The grounds taken in the FAFO filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act interalia related to quantum of compensation awarded only and not on any other grounds. The said FAFO was decided by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 09.11.2011 wherein the High Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 1,76,880/ - to Rs. 4,92,888/ - apart from the funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. While doing so the High Court found that issue nos. 1and 2 were decided without discussion of evidence and issue no. 3 was also similarly decided in a mechanical manner. It was recorded that the compensation was awarded on issue no. 4 which was a general issue as to what relief the claimants are entitled. Having so recorded its view on the decision taken by the Tribunal on issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 the High Court proceeded to decide the FAFO however with the following direction: - "Subject to aforesaid direction, the impugned award dated 29 -05 -2006 stands modified. While parting with the case, we would like to observe that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, Sri Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, Additional District Judge, Court No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, has dealt with the matter casually and delivered the impugned award by a cryptic order without discussing the evidence available on record. Learned Presiding Officer should have discussed the evidence available on record and should have assigned reasons on each and every Issue. It appears that learned Presiding Officer lacks legal acquaintance and requires improvement to reach upto -the -mark which is expected from a judicial officer, holding the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this court, who shall communicate the same to the Presiding Officer, who has delivered the impugned award dated 29 -05 -2006 and copy shall also be kept in service record. The First Appeal From Order is allowed accordingly.";