SMT. POONAM AND 5 ORS.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 608 of 2014

Smt. Poonam And 5 Ors.
                                                               .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Ors.
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Abhishek Tiwari, Anurag Upadhyaya,
                                   Jitendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Court No. - 54
                      HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents are
present.

2. This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to
set aside the judgment and order dated 8.11.2013 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad
in M.A.C.P. No. 374 of 2011 (Smt. Poonam and others vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and others).

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased Devendra
Kumar was hit by a Maruti Van bearing registration No. UP 14 S 5564 on
20.10.2010 at about 10:00 p.m. At the relevant time, the deceased was
returning home and, when he reached near Pawan Cinema, the driver of the
offending vehicle, coming from the opposite direction, hit him. The
deceased sustained serious injuries and was immediately taken to Narendra
Mohan Hospital, Mohannagar, Ghaziabad, where he succumbed to his
injuries on 27.10.2010. An FIR in respect of the incident was lodged and a
charge sheet was also submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle.
However, the learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely on the
ground that the FIR was lodged after a delay of seven days and that no
technical report in respect of the offending vehicle had been submitted by
the concerned Investigating Officer. It was urged that the findings recorded
by the learned tribunal are erroneous, as the charge sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer after due investigation was itself sufficient to establish
the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident. Hence, the
impugned judgment passed by the learned tribunal is liable to be set aside.
                                                           FAFO No. 608 of 2014
                                2

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that the FIR, which was lodged after seven days, did not mention
the registration number of the vehicle or the name of the driver who was
driving the said vehicle. An eyewitness produced on behalf of the claimants,
PW-2 Ram Kumar, was disbelieved by the tribunal. It was further contended
that a perusal of his cross-examination itself indicates that this witness was
neither present at the spot nor had witnessed the incident. Prima facie, his
testimony reflects that he was a planted witness produced before the tribunal
with a view to obtaining compensation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
It is true that one of the grounds considered by the learned tribunal for
dismissing the claim petition was the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR on
behalf of the claimants, but that was not the sole ground considered by the
tribunal. The tribunal has thoroughly considered the deposition of PW-2
Ram Kumar, who claimed himself to be an eyewitness to the incident. This
witness also claimed to have been present at the spot at the time of the
accident, as he was returning from Lal Kua on his motorcycle. However, his
cross-examination indicates that he was not present at the spot. The learned
tribunal has also observed that the statement of this witness was recorded by
the concerned Investigating Officer four months after the incident, which
raises substantial doubt regarding his presence at the spot.

6. This observation of the learned tribunal, when read in conjunction with
the cross-examination of the witness, is sufficient to establish the
unreliability of his testimony. He stated in his cross-examination that he was
nearly 100 feet behind the scene of the incident and that the driver of the
offending vehicle was driving at a speed of 70-80 kilometres per hour. The
witness further stated that he had recorded the registration number of the
offending vehicle in his diary. However, as observed by the tribunal, the said
diary was never produced before it. Moreover, this witness stated in his
deposition that he reached the house of the deceased after making inquiries
about his whereabouts from other persons and informed the family members
about the incident as well as the registration number of the vehicle.
Considering this fact, the learned tribunal held that had this witness actually
been present at the spot and thereafter approached the family members of the
deceased and informed them about the registration number and other details
of the offending vehicle, the same would have found mention in the FIR.

7. The omission to mention the details of the offending vehicle in the FIR
was sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 Ram Kumar. The said
observation of the learned tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity,
                                                                                              FAFO No. 608 of 2014
                                                                    3

                                    particularly because the FIR and the subsequent filing of the charge sheet, by
                                    themselves, do not constitute substantive evidence unless corroborated by
                                    cogent and reliable testimony of an eyewitness in cases of this nature. Apart
                                    from it, claim of eye witness PW-2 Ram Kumar noted the registration
                                    number of offending vehicle escaping from spot from a distance of nearly
                                    100 feet also seems unreliable. Therefore, the decision of the learned
                                    tribunal to discard the testimony of the alleged eyewitness, PW-2 Ram
                                    Kumar, and not to place reliance upon the FIR and charge sheet produced
                                    before it does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

                                    8. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned tribunal are upheld. The
                                    appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Ujjawal
                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad