Smt Kamala and others v. Ravi and others. Learned Tribunal while allowing the claim application ha

3. Heard Shri Govind Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Suparna Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ashish Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for all the respondents no. 1 to 6.

4. The instant petition has been filed aggrieved against the judgement and order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 145 of 2016 in re: Smt Kamala and others vs Ravi and others. Learned Tribunal while allowing the claim application has awarded a sum of Rs 1.90 Lakhs in favour of the claimants.

5. The only issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the judgement impugned is that learned Tribunal has patently erred in law in allowing the claim petition although the vehicle number which had been indicated in the claim petition was never indicated in the FIR which had been lodged after five days of alleged incident and neither was the same indicated in the final report that had been submitted by the authorities and thus it is apparent that a fictitious vehicle number was indicated which aspect of the matter has not been considered by learned Tribunal.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged incident took place on 23.03.2015 in which the husband of the claimant no. 1 one Shri Mahaveer sustained serious injuries and died during treatment. The FIR was lodged after five days of the incident in which no vehicle number was indicated. On the basis of the same the authorities submitted final report on 19.07.2015 in which again no vehicle number was indicated. However, in the claim petition which was filed by the claimants the vehicle number namely UP 77 AN 8045 was indicated. The prosecution witness no. 2 Vishal Kumar who was the acquaintance of the deceased, in his statement had indicated that although he remembered the vehicle number but he did not remember either the colour of the vehicle, number of wheels of the vehicle and as to what was loaded on the said vehicle which itself indicates that the said acquaintance / witness namely Shri Vishal Kumar had given a false statement on the basis of which the Claims Tribunal had allowed the claim petition although legally, no reliance could have been placed by learned Tribunal on the said statement.

7. It is thus contended that the judgement and order impugned merits to be set aside on this ground alone.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents claimants has argued that a perusal of the statement as given by the acquaintance namely Vishal Kumar would indicate that though he has stated that he only remembers the number of the vehicle but did not remember either the color or the number of wheels or as to what was loaded on the said vehicle yet the appellant insurance company had ample opportunity for cross examination of the said witness which in fact was done by the insurance company but even in the cross examination the insurance company failed to indicate or elicit that the vehicle number that was given by the said witness was suspicious in any manner which fact of the matter has been considered by learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgement and order dated 02.05.2019 and as such the only ground as has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is itself patently misconceived and consequently the appeal merits to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

10. From perusal of record it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 23.03.2015 in which one Shri Mahaveer sustained serious injuries and died. Admittedly the FIR has been lodged after a period of five days. In the FIR the vehicle number was not indicated. In the final report which was submitted by the authorities on 19.07.2015 also, the vehicle number was not indicated. However in the claim application which was filed by the applicants the vehicle no.UP 77 AN 8045 was indicated.

11. Learned Tribunal has framed issue no. 1 that whether on the fateful day i.e. 23.03.2015 at around 11:00 AM an accident took place with vehicle no. UP 77 AN 8045 resulting which Shri Mahaveer sustained serious injuries and died. In support of the said claim application the prosecution witness no. 2 namely Shri Vishal Kumar who is said to be an acquaintance of the deceased has categorically stated in his statement that he remembers the number of the vehicle as he had seen the number but he could not see the colour or the number of wheels on the said vehicle or as to what was loaded on the said vehicle. The statement has been filed alongwith the appeal and the original thereof has also been perused by this Court. In the cross examination which was done by the insurance company, the insurance company failed to put any specific query to the witness per which the statement regarding he remembering the vehicle number could be controverted in any manner.

12. As already indicated above, perusal of the statement as given by the witness Shri Vishal Kumar would indicate that the insurance company failed to put any query to the witness to indicate fallacy in the statement of he remembering the vehicle number on the fateful day.

13. The mere fact that the FIR which was lodged after 5 days and even in the final report submitted by the authorities the vehicle number was not indicated cannot and will not be a ground to contend that the statement as given by the witness namely Shri Vishal Kumar was questionable in any manner.

14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out in the judgement and order impugned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

16. Let trial court record be returned back. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Heard Shri Govind Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Suparna Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ashish Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for all the respondents no. 1 to 6.

4. The instant petition has been filed aggrieved against the judgement and order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 145 of 2016 in re: Smt Kamala and others vs Ravi and others. Learned Tribunal while allowing the claim application has awarded a sum of Rs 1.90 Lakhs in favour of the claimants.

5. The only issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the judgement impugned is that learned Tribunal has patently erred in law in allowing the claim petition although the vehicle number which had been indicated in the claim petition was never indicated in the FIR which had been lodged after five days of alleged incident and neither was the same indicated in the final report that had been submitted by the authorities and thus it is apparent that a fictitious vehicle number was indicated which aspect of the matter has not been considered by learned Tribunal.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged incident took place on 23.03.2015 in which the husband of the claimant no. 1 one Shri Mahaveer sustained serious injuries and died during treatment. The FIR was lodged after five days of the incident in which no vehicle number was indicated. On the basis of the same the authorities submitted final report on 19.07.2015 in which again no vehicle number was indicated. However, in the claim petition which was filed by the claimants the vehicle number namely UP 77 AN 8045 was indicated. The prosecution witness no. 2 Vishal Kumar who was the acquaintance of the deceased, in his statement had indicated that although he remembered the vehicle number but he did not remember either the colour of the vehicle, number of wheels of the vehicle and as to what was loaded on the said vehicle which itself indicates that the said acquaintance / witness namely Shri Vishal Kumar had given a false statement on the basis of which the Claims Tribunal had allowed the claim petition although legally, no reliance could have been placed by learned Tribunal on the said statement.

7. It is thus contended that the judgement and order impugned merits to be set aside on this ground alone.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents claimants has argued that a perusal of the statement as given by the acquaintance namely Vishal Kumar would indicate that though he has stated that he only remembers the number of the vehicle but did not remember either the color or the number of wheels or as to what was loaded on the said vehicle yet the appellant insurance company had ample opportunity for cross examination of the said witness which in fact was done by the insurance company but even in the cross examination the insurance company failed to indicate or elicit that the vehicle number that was given by the said witness was suspicious in any manner which fact of the matter has been considered by learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgement and order dated 02.05.2019 and as such the only ground as has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is itself patently misconceived and consequently the appeal merits to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

10. From perusal of record it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 23.03.2015 in which one Shri Mahaveer sustained serious injuries and died. Admittedly the FIR has been lodged after a period of five days. In the FIR the vehicle number was not indicated. In the final report which was submitted by the authorities on 19.07.2015 also, the vehicle number was not indicated. However in the claim application which was filed by the applicants the vehicle no.UP 77 AN 8045 was indicated.

11. Learned Tribunal has framed issue no. 1 that whether on the fateful day i.e. 23.03.2015 at around 11:00 AM an accident took place with vehicle no. UP 77 AN 8045 resulting which Shri Mahaveer sustained serious injuries and died. In support of the said claim application the prosecution witness no. 2 namely Shri Vishal Kumar who is said to be an acquaintance of the deceased has categorically stated in his statement that he remembers the number of the vehicle as he had seen the number but he could not see the colour or the number of wheels on the said vehicle or as to what was loaded on the said vehicle. The statement has been filed alongwith the appeal and the original thereof has also been perused by this Court. In the cross examination which was done by the insurance company, the insurance company failed to put any specific query to the witness per which the statement regarding he remembering the vehicle number could be controverted in any manner.

12. As already indicated above, perusal of the statement as given by the witness Shri Vishal Kumar would indicate that the insurance company failed to put any query to the witness to indicate fallacy in the statement of he remembering the vehicle number on the fateful day.

13. The mere fact that the FIR which was lodged after 5 days and even in the final report submitted by the authorities the vehicle number was not indicated cannot and will not be a ground to contend that the statement as given by the witness namely Shri Vishal Kumar was questionable in any manner.

14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out in the judgement and order impugned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

16. Let trial court record be returned back. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench