Manager vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

award is that in the First Information Report. It was stated by the informant as well as the claimants that the offending motor vehicle was being driven by Hashim whereas when the charge sheet was filed, it was indicated that Firoz was the driver.

3. It is stated that the accident was a hit and run case and later at the time of filing of the claim petition, the name of Firoz and the offending motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 has been incorporated with the connivance of the owner of the vehicle only to extract the money from the Insurance Company, consequently, the appeal be allowed which has not been done.

4. It is thus urged that merely by implanting the motorcycle, the claimants could not have been granted the compensation whereas it was required of them to prove the accident and the involvement of the vehicle appropriately.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the deceased was the only son of the claimants who died on account of an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863. 2 FAFO No. 301 of 2023

6. It is further urged that the son of the claimants died while he was working for his employer and it is his office colleagues who had informed the claimants about the accident. Even though the name of Hashim was mentioned in the First Information Report but it is after the investigations that the police had filed a charge sheet against Firoz and also found the involvement of the motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 which was in name of Firoz and in such circumstances, the Tribunal having taken note of the evidence on record has returned a finding which cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law, accordingly, the impugned award does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

8. Certain undisputed facts which emerge from the record are that on 30th December, 2016, while the deceased Rohit Kumar Gupta had gone towards Ring Road side on his duty, he was hit by a motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863. The injured Rohit Kumar Gupta was taken initially to Jagrani Medical Center and there it was found that he suffered grievous injuries and required higher medical care, hence, he was taken to the Trauma Center where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment on 31.12.2016.

8. The record further indicates that the owner of the motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 namely Firoz while filing his written statement merely took a plea that no accident occurred with his motorcycle on 30.12.2016, however, beyond that there was no material brought on record to corroborate his plea. More so, the owner namely Firoz did not even enter into the witness box to support his plea.

9. Mere plea in the written statement cannot partake the nature of proof and in such circumstances, when there was evidence on record to contrary and no evidence was led by the owner who could have been the best witness to explain regarding the involvement of his motorcycle, coupled with the fact that once Sri Firoz was charge sheeted by the police for the very same accident, there was no material brought on record to indicate as to what efforts were made by Firoz to prove his innocence and non-involvement in the alleged accident which gave rise to the offence of rash and negligent driving and by contesting the trial, at least, prima facie his involvement was 3 FAFO No. 301 of 2023 found.

10. It is also to be noticed that the Insurance Company who is raising the aforesaid plea in this appeal also did not bring on record any evidence either oral or documentary to support the said plea and it appears that it being an afterthought, negative inferences are being culled out from the statement of the witnesses to support the submissions without controverting the documentary evidence i.e. the charge sheet filed by the police after due investigation and prima facie finding that the offending motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 was involved, it was in the name of Firoz who was said to be riding the said motorcycle.

11. In this view of the matter, since there is no contrary evidence and admittedly the claimants who were the parents of the deceased were not the eye-witnesses and their account as recorded in their statements were based on information received, coupled with the fact that it was supported by the documentary evidence of the First Information Report and the charge sheet and during investigation and if certain facts came to light which pointed to the involvement of the motorcycle and its owner/driver, Sri Firoz, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are either perverse or not based on any cogent and admissible evidence.

12. Since the Claim Petitions are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and there being clear evidence in this regard which confirms the occurrence and the foundational facts having been proved as noticed above, this Court does not found that there is any palpable in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the appeal arising out of impugned order dated 23.06.2023 passed in Claim Petition No. 343 of 2017, which is accordingly dismissed. The records of the Tribunal be returned forthwith. August 26, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

award is that in the First Information Report. It was stated by the informant as well as the claimants that the offending motor vehicle was being driven by Hashim whereas when the charge sheet was filed, it was indicated that Firoz was the driver.

3. It is stated that the accident was a hit and run case and later at the time of filing of the claim petition, the name of Firoz and the offending motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 has been incorporated with the connivance of the owner of the vehicle only to extract the money from the Insurance Company, consequently, the appeal be allowed which has not been done.

4. It is thus urged that merely by implanting the motorcycle, the claimants could not have been granted the compensation whereas it was required of them to prove the accident and the involvement of the vehicle appropriately.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the deceased was the only son of the claimants who died on account of an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863. 2 FAFO No. 301 of 2023

6. It is further urged that the son of the claimants died while he was working for his employer and it is his office colleagues who had informed the claimants about the accident. Even though the name of Hashim was mentioned in the First Information Report but it is after the investigations that the police had filed a charge sheet against Firoz and also found the involvement of the motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 which was in name of Firoz and in such circumstances, the Tribunal having taken note of the evidence on record has returned a finding which cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law, accordingly, the impugned award does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

8. Certain undisputed facts which emerge from the record are that on 30th December, 2016, while the deceased Rohit Kumar Gupta had gone towards Ring Road side on his duty, he was hit by a motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863. The injured Rohit Kumar Gupta was taken initially to Jagrani Medical Center and there it was found that he suffered grievous injuries and required higher medical care, hence, he was taken to the Trauma Center where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment on 31.12.2016.

8. The record further indicates that the owner of the motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 namely Firoz while filing his written statement merely took a plea that no accident occurred with his motorcycle on 30.12.2016, however, beyond that there was no material brought on record to corroborate his plea. More so, the owner namely Firoz did not even enter into the witness box to support his plea.

9. Mere plea in the written statement cannot partake the nature of proof and in such circumstances, when there was evidence on record to contrary and no evidence was led by the owner who could have been the best witness to explain regarding the involvement of his motorcycle, coupled with the fact that once Sri Firoz was charge sheeted by the police for the very same accident, there was no material brought on record to indicate as to what efforts were made by Firoz to prove his innocence and non-involvement in the alleged accident which gave rise to the offence of rash and negligent driving and by contesting the trial, at least, prima facie his involvement was 3 FAFO No. 301 of 2023 found.

10. It is also to be noticed that the Insurance Company who is raising the aforesaid plea in this appeal also did not bring on record any evidence either oral or documentary to support the said plea and it appears that it being an afterthought, negative inferences are being culled out from the statement of the witnesses to support the submissions without controverting the documentary evidence i.e. the charge sheet filed by the police after due investigation and prima facie finding that the offending motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 HC 7863 was involved, it was in the name of Firoz who was said to be riding the said motorcycle.

11. In this view of the matter, since there is no contrary evidence and admittedly the claimants who were the parents of the deceased were not the eye-witnesses and their account as recorded in their statements were based on information received, coupled with the fact that it was supported by the documentary evidence of the First Information Report and the charge sheet and during investigation and if certain facts came to light which pointed to the involvement of the motorcycle and its owner/driver, Sri Firoz, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are either perverse or not based on any cogent and admissible evidence.

12. Since the Claim Petitions are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and there being clear evidence in this regard which confirms the occurrence and the foundational facts having been proved as noticed above, this Court does not found that there is any palpable in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the appeal arising out of impugned order dated 23.06.2023 passed in Claim Petition No. 343 of 2017, which is accordingly dismissed. The records of the Tribunal be returned forthwith. August 26, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench