HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 608 of 2014 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. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, Anurag Upadhyaya, Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Smt. Poonam And 5 Ors. .....Appellant(s) National Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Ors. .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 FAFO No. 608 of 2014 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad