Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27572 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 299 of 2012 Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Its General Respondent :- Balkrishna And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Tiwari,Chandra Shekher Pandey,Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- B.L. Yadav,Manoj Kr. Jaiswal Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Despite the names of Sri B.L.Yadav, Advocate & Sri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate being indicated from the side of the respondents, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. As the matter pertains to the year 2012 accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally. 3. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant i.e Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and award dated 25.01.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 162 of 2011 Inre; Bal Krishna and Ors Vs. U.P State Road Transport Corporation whereby the learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,57,000/- in favour of the claimants along with the interest at the rate of 6 % per annum. 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that an accident is said to have occurred on 20.04.2010 which resulted in the death of Sri Ghanshyam. 5. The parents of Sri Ghanshyam filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal. 6. The learned tribunal has framed issue no. 1 which was as to whether on 20.04.2010 at around 0700 PM, a Government roadways bus having registration no. UP35 H 3039 while being driven carelessly and negligently and while going on the wrong side, hit Sri Ghanshyam which resulted in his death on spot. 7. After framing the said issue, the learned tribunal has considered the said issue and has considered the prompt First Information Report that had been lodged by the eye witness who was accompanying Sri Ghanshyam on the fateful day which resulted in the bus being seized by the authorities. 8. Placing reliance on the statement of the eye witness as well as the First Information Report which specifically indicates the bus number and charge sheet that has been filed against the driver of the said bus namely Sri Nizamuddin who had also been charged for an offence under Section 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned tribunal concluded that the accident has taken place and the bus had hit Sri Ghanshyam which resulted in his death on the spot and has thereafter awarded the aforesaid amount. 9. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed. 10. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Corporation had specifically denied the such accident having taken place from the bus in question rather it was indicated that while the bus was driving from the spot it was noticed that a person was lying on the road side and thus the accident had already occurred which has resulted in the death of Sri Ghanshyam which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial Court while passing the said award. In support thereof, the Corporation had produced two witnesses namely the driver and the conductor whose statements had not been correctly appreciated by the learned tribunal. 11. No other ground has been urged. 11. The aforesaid argument of Sri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived for the reasons that (a) a First Information Report was promptly lodged by the person who was accompanying Sri Ghanshyam which indicated about the accident having taken place from the bus in question and the bus number was also indicated in the said First Information Report (b) there is an un-rebutted statement of the eye witness to the said accident namely the person who was accompanying the deceased (c) the charge sheet which has been filed against the driver of the said bus which all indicate about the said bus being involved in the incident. 12. All the aforesaid aspects of the matter have been considered threadbare by the learned tribunal while deciding the said issue. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to indicate any other ground to persuade the Court from taking contrary view from that as has been taken by the learned tribunal while deciding the issue no. 1. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. It is provided that the amount as deposited before this Court be remitted to the learned trial Court. 14. Let the learned trial Court records be returned back as per procedure. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench