UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. SUNITA AND 5 ORS.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 748 of 2016

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
Smt. Sunita And 5 Ors.
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)          : Siddarth Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Ashutosh Upadhyay, Kapil Kumar Soni,
                                    Vinod Kumar

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
respondent.

2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 09.11.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jhansi, in MACP No. 582 of 2013.

3. The accident took place on 26.08.2013 at about 7:30 P.M., when the
deceased, Rajendra Prasad, was standing on the roadside. He was hit by a
truck bearing Registration No. MP-53 H-103. The deceased succumbed to
his injuries after a few hours. The learned Tribunal, after examining the
evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the negligence of the
offending vehicle was duly proved and, accordingly, awarded compensation
of Rs. 9,31,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was asserted by the
claimants that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was in the company
of PW-2 ( Ram Ballabh) and PW-3 ( Rafeeq). PW-2 and PW-3 ( Rafeeq)
were examined before the Tribunal. Their statements were contradictory
with regard to the manner of occurrence and, therefore, were not worthy of
reliance. PW-2 deposed that the accident occurred when the truck came from
the opposite direction and knocked down the deceased. On the other hand,
PW-3 stated that the deceased was knocked down by the truck which was
coming from behind. Although the learned Tribunal had observed that their
statements were contradictory, it had discarded the said contradiction as
being immaterial. It was further submitted that both the witnesses admitted
                                                           FAFO No. 748 of 2016
                                2


before the Tribunal that they were illiterate and were neither able to read nor
write. Therefore, it was not possible for them to note down the registration
number of the offending vehicle. It was submitted that the version asserted
by the claimants is concocted and was put forward before the Tribunal with
the intention of obtaining compensation on false grounds, and that the award
passed by the learned Tribunal, being based upon unreliable evidence, is
liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned
Tribunal has carefully considered the contradictions occurring in the
statements of both the witnesses and has held that such contradictions are
minor in nature and cannot be taken into account for discarding the factum
of the accident. The said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is
reasonable and does not call for any interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

7. The contradictions appearing in the depositions of both the eyewitnesses
may, at first sight, appear to be material. However, what is significant is to
consider whether such contradictions, in cases arising out of motor
accidents, are so material as to warrant discarding the factum of the accident.
An accident always occurs suddenly, and the victim or eyewitness is taken
by surprise upon witnessing such an incident. Moreover, it cannot be
expected from a witness who has recovered from the shock of the accident to
narrate the exact sequence of events witnessed by him at the relevant time. A
witness cannot be expected to remember and narrate every detail of the
occurrence immediately after the lapse of time.

8. Similarly, if two eyewitnesses are present at the spot at the same time
and witness the same incident, there is every possibility of some variation in
their respective depositions. Therefore, the contradictions pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellant are not so material as to warrant discarding
the factum of the accident.

9. It is also relevant to note that an FIR was lodged in the case, and a
charge-sheet against the offending vehicle and its driver was subsequently
submitted by the police. Therefore, upon considering the entire evidence on
record in its totality, the same cannot be held to be doubtful or unreliable.
                                                                                          FAFO No. 748 of 2016
                                                                  3


                                    10.   In the given circumstances, merely because there are certain
                                    contradictions in the statements of two eyewitnesses, or because they
                                    admitted that they were neither able to read nor write, the factum of the
                                    accident, which has been duly proved before the Tribunal, cannot be
                                    discarded.

                                    11. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is upheld.
                                    Consequently, this First Appeal From Order is dismissed.

                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                          (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad