HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1359 of 2024 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ami Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as Sri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 28.05.2024 whereby the claim preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed. 3. The facts that emerge from the pleadings on record are that a claim petition was filed alleging that one Subhash Chandra Vimal left home on motorcycle bearing No.UP 16C 4325 and Sauraj Singh on Scooter bearing No.UP 14J 5212. They were going almost together at about 7:45 PM, when the scooter of the deceased met with an accident with Dumper HR 38B 6688, which was driven by the driver rashly and negligently, which resulted in substantial injury to Subhash Chandra Vimal and subsequent death. 4. It is argued that in connection to the said accident, an FIR was got registered as FIR No.158 of 2002, in which the vehicle was transcribed as HR38-D 1149. Subsequently, it was said that the vehicle number was not HR-38D 1149 and it was actually HR 38D 6688. In the said backdrop, the claim petition was preferred. The witnesses were examined, which included PW-2, who was going on the other Scooter along with the deceased. In his testimony, he deposed that the number of the vehicle was Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ami Tandon, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jaidev Singh Awana, Ravi Prakash Singh, Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Pannalal And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) Shiv Kishore And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) HR 38D 1149, the number which was mentioned in the FIR. The appellants claimed that the number of the vehicle was wrongly recorded and the correct number was HR 38D 6688, which fact is also evident from the police report, Paper No.9-Ga. 5. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the abovesaid fact was pleaded before the Tribunal, which resulted in the Tribunal passing an order on 27.07.2007 wherein the Tribunal was of the view that in view of the facts pleaded and to come to the correct position, it was essential to summon the SHO, Sector-39, NOIDA; the officers of the RTO and the writer of the technical report in respect of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and was subsequently released by the police authorities. The said order came to be challenged by the Insurance Company in Writ- C No.43781 of 2007, in which, by means of the order dated 23.09.2024, this Court entertained the writ petition and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 27.07.2007. It is informed that subsequently vide order dated 23.09.2024, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, however, prior to the said date, the award dated 28.05.2024 has been passed based upon the oral and other evidence available before the tribunal. The relevant evidence, which could have thrown the light on the correct facts recorded in the order dated 27.07.2007 could never be summoned in view of the protection granted by this Court. 6. A perusal of the document, which is Paper-9-Ga on record, reveals that the vehicle in question was identified as HR38D 6688. The veracity of the said report and the writer of the said report could never be summoned in view of the interim order passed by this Court. 7. As the findings of fact have been recorded on the evidence, which are on record, without considering the relevant evidence, which could have thrown lights on the factual aspect as pleaded inter se in between the parties. Clearly the finding based upon the evidence on record without considering the material evidence which could have thrown light makes the award perverse. 8. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents that the said order was passed by the Tribunal on 27.07.2007 suo motu and not on the FAFO No. 1359 of 2024 2 application of the claimants and thus, the said order is erroneous, merits rejection. It is fairly well settled that the Tribunals are duty bound to take into consideration all the facts and evidence enable them to reach to a conclusion for awarding just and fair compensation. The said power is also vested in the Tribunal by virtue of Rule 215 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. 9. Considering the fact that the material evidence could never be summoned on account of an interim order passed by this Court, the order impugned dated 28.05.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside. 10. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the matter and pass fresh order after summoning the evidence as indicated in the order dated 27.07.2007 and after giving the opportunity to the claimant to cross-examine the owner of the vehicle in the light of the said document afresh. The award shall be passed with all expedition as the matter is very old. 11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. 12. It will be open to the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle to take such steps to protect their rights, as may be advised under law. May 7, 2026 akverma FAFO No. 1359 of 2024 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad