Moot Court claimaint

8/7/2019 Moot Court claimaint

1/8

MOOT COURTPAPER-VI

CLAIMANT

Enroll. No. LL/05/03045 Roll No. 672045


2/8

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD,LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW.

First Appeal From Order No. 60 of 2009

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Tripathi, aged about 40, son of Sri Trevini Prasad Tripathi,

Resident of M.G.Road, Police-Station Hazratganj, Tehsil and District Lucknow.

......Appellant/Claimant

Versus

1. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Directorat Terhi Kothi, Lucknow.

2. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Region,Lucknow.

....... Respondents

Nature of Case : Motor Accident ClaimValuation of Appeal : Rs.43,80,000.00

Court Fees Paid : Rs.10.00

Appeal Under Section 173 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the

Judgment and Award dt. 06.10.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal/Special Additional District Judge, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No.

92/2008, Rajesh Kumar Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.:-

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the Claimant/Appellant, who was a successful reputed businessmenof District Lucknow, handling a sub-agency of BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,

was going to DEWA SHARIF, Barabanki by his own new Maruti Car

accompanied by two others on 10.06.2007.


3/8

-2-

2. That at about 10.30 in the morning a recklessly driven U.P.S.R.T.C.uncontrolled Bus No. UP 42 T-0596 hit the Car of the Complainant near

Ahmadpur, District Barabanki at Faizabad-Lucknow Road, causing

severe damage to the Car and grievous injury to the Cla imant.

3. That the front and right side of the Car was badly damaged and theClaimants right hand was almost amputated beside the left arm of the

claimant developed multiple fractures.

4. That the incident was seen by dozens of persons but as the people weregathering and anguish was shown by the people for negligent and reckless

driving, the drivers of the Bus later ran away with the Bus from the spot.

However, the registration number was noted down by the other occupants

of the Car.

5. That the claimant was first rushed to District Hospital, Barabanki, and thedoctor on duty after giving first aid and referred the matter to Medical

College, Lucknow.

6. That the doctors of Medical College, after thorough examination of theClaimant, referred him to Maya Hospital Centre for specialized treatment

as there was eminent danger of amputating the entire right hand.


4/8

-3-

7. That even after the best efforts, operations and using costly medicines, thedoctors did not succeeded to save the right hand of the claimant and the

entire right hand was amputated through surgery.

8. That after amputating the right hand, the problem was not over and evenafter regular treatment upto six monthss, the would was not completely

healed up.

9.

That the claimants whos right hand was amputated from Soldier,

became completely handicapped and for to save the rest of the body, the

claimant was several times taken to Bombay for treatment in which

thousands of rupees were expend every time.

10. That the Claimant who has not even expensed lacks of rupees in histreatment but also thrown out of his business which was the sole source of

his and his family livelihood.

11. That the claimant in the circumstances, filed a Claim Petition before theMotor Accident Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Lucknow for an amount of Rs.43,80,000.00 along with interest

thereon.

12. That the U.P.S.R.T.C. denied the accident in his Written Statement andrefuted the Claim.


5/8


6/8

-5-B. Because, the learned Tribunal has ignored this fact that the driver of

opposite party has flatly denied the accident, which shows that he was

alone liable for the accident.

C. Because the learned Tribunal has over looked the police investigation inwhich it has been clearly mentioned that the driver of the bus has lost his

control over the bus to save a goat crossing the road.

D. Because, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the Carto be jointly liable for the accident and that too without any evidence.

E. Because, the learned Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vestedin him by the law.

F. Because, the learned Tribunal has tried to minimize the gravity and effectof the accident in his findings without any justification.

G. Because, the Claimant was a very successful businessmen but was thrownout to become a rubbish due to fatal accident.

H. Because, the entire business of the claimant was sent to a halt as he had togo through the treatment outside from Lucknow for long period, stretched

upto two years.

I. Because, factually the claimant is completely handicapped.

J. Because, the loss of the claimant for business was lesser valued.


7/8

-6-K. Because, the learned Tribunal has ignored that the Costly bills of Bombay

Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Marine Lines, Bombay,

amounting to Rs.50,967/-

L. Because, the family of the claimant cannot survive in the pitty amountawarded by the learned Tribunal.

M. Because as per the living status and commentation should have evalued.N. Because, the impugned award was granted on 06.10.2004 for which an

application for certified copy was moved on 11.10.2004, which was

prepared and distributed on 03.11.2004, hence the Appeal is preferred

with within limitation.

P R A Y E R

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously

be pleased to:

i. Allow the present appeal and after altering the award of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, L, granted in M.A.C.T. Claim Petition No.

92/2002, awarded an amount of Rs.43,80,000/- along with interest

thereon to the Appellant.

ii. any other suitable order or direction which this Honble Court may deemfit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed.


8/8

-7-

iii. Awarded the cost of litigation to the appellant.Lucknow

( )Jan. 24, 2009 Advocate

Moot Court claimaint

Documents

Transcript of Moot Court claimaint