‘Mischievous’ Advocate Appears For Both Accused And Claimant In Motor Accident Case, Allahabad HC Issues Notice [Read Order]

Incidents of advocates indulging in unprofessional behaviour are many. However, not many would have heard of cases where an advocate appears for the accused in a motor accident case and then fights it out for the parents of the deceased before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

This is exactly what happened in a case that was brought to the notice of the Allahabad High Court recently.

Justice Ashok Kumar was hearing an appeal moved by Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited against the March 29 order of the MACT directing it to pay Rs 6.6 lakh to the parents of a man who died early last year after being hit by a rashly driven tempo.

During the hearing of the appeal, insurer’s counsel Pranjal Mehrotra pointed out that advocate Sobhram Kushwaha had appeared on behalf of the accused Bablu, the owner of the tempo and Dinesh Chandra, the driver, in the criminal proceedings related to the same accident and now he was appearing for the claimants too.

He submitted that the act of advocate Kushwaha was against the settled norms and the law.

“This fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the insurance company. The Tribunal has not properly examined this issue and prima facie this Court found that the act of the counsel Sobhram Kushwaha is mischievous and wrong,” noted Justice Kumar.

The court then issued a notice to Kushwaha, which would be served through CJM, Agra, and Kushwaha has been directed to appear before the high court on August 13.

In this case, Iradatnagar (Uttar Pradesh) resident Kamal Singh had died after being hit by a tempo on the night of January 6, 2017, while he was returning home on foot.

Kamal was 38 years old when he breathed his last and used to make Rs 10,000 every month from farming and milking cattle.

His mother Sondevi and father Bhagwan Singh had moved MACT claiming compensation.

The Tribunal had directed Tata AIG to pay compensation of Rs 6.60 lakh to the claimants.

Before the tribunal also, the insurance company had submitted that the FIR in the case was registered against unknown persons and did not disclose the details of the accused or the vehicle involved.

It also said there appears to be some conspiracy between the accused and the advocate who is also appearing for the claimant.