Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37693 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 290 of 2019 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd.Throu.Branch Manager Hardoi Respondent :- Shivasharan Mishra And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Waquar Hashim Counsel for Respondent :- Neeraj Chaurasiya,Shivendra Pratap Singh,Vineet Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Waquar Hashim, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1. 2. Despite notices being issued to respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the same having been duly served, none has put in appearance on their behalf. 3. The Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the award dated 28.02.2019 passed in C.P. No. 363 of 2016, whereby, in an injury case, a sum of Rs. 2,51,500/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant- respondent no.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award dated 28.02.2019 is being assailed only on a solitary contention that there is a major change in the version of the claimant as indicated in the F.I.R. viz-a-viz the contents of the claim petition. Elaborating his submission, it is urged that although the F.I.R. was lodged two months after the date of the occurrence, it was, at the first point of time, the document wherein the narration of the accident was mentioned. 6. In the said F.I.R., it has been alleged by the claimant-respondent no.1 that Sudhakar Verma was the driver of the offending tractor who had dashed against respondent no.1. It was further indicated in the F.I.R. that on the fateful evening, the offending tractor, which was mentioned as of Eicher brand and blue in color, was being rashly and negligently driven on the wrong side and had collided with the car of respondent no.1, causing him grievous injuries. 7. In the F.I.R., it was also stated that the said driver, namely, Sudhakar Verma, had indicated that the offending tractor belonged to one of his relatives, namely, Avneesh Verma, S/o Nighvendra Verma. It is stated that once the claim petition came to be filed, the tractor number was mentioned as UP 34 N 6143, which was not mentioned in the F.I.R., coupled with the fact that the name of the owner of the tractor had also been changed, and it was indicated in the claim petition that the owner was one Rajaram. 8. It is urged that since respondent no.1 had made incorrect statements and did not implead the rightful persons, consequently, no liability could have been fastened on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the award is not to be subrogated by the appellant and the appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 9. Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1, has urged that the date of the accident is not in dispute, and that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. On the date of the accident, respondent no.1 sustained a hip injury and remained hospitalized for about two months and only once he recovered, he got the F.I.R. lodged. 10. In the F.I.R., it was clearly indicated who was driving the vehicle and the fact that it was a tractor was also specifically mentioned. During the investigation, it was found that the tractor belonged to Rajaram and was being driven by Sudhakar Verma. 11. The accused, i.e., Sudhakar Verma, was even charge-sheeted, and all this material was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and also proved during the trial. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 did not prove the foundational facts; and once the same was done, there was no material produced by the contesting defendants in the claim petition to prove otherwise. In such circumstances, the award has rightly been made by the Tribunal and does not require any interference from this Court. 13. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that while filing the claim petition, Rajaram was impleaded as defendant no.1, who is the owner of the offending tractor, and Shudhakar Verma was impleaded as defendant no.2, who was the driver of the offending tractor. The record indicates that neither defendant no.1 nor defendant no.2 contested the proceedings despite due service, and the matter proceeded ex parte. 14. This Court further finds from the perusal of the record that the written statement filed by the Insurance Company was also evasive, inasmuch as no clear plea was raised in respect of the aforesaid issue which is now sought to be urged before this Court. Moreover, only general defences were raised before the Tribunal, such as that unless and until it was found that the tractor was being plied in accordance with the policy conditions, no award could be passed on their behalf. 15. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues. With regard to the issue of rash and negligent driving, being issue no.1 and issue no.4, both were decided in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal recorded that it was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending tractor that the accident occurred, resulting in injuries to respondent no.1. 16. As far as the insurance of the offending tractor bearing registration no.UP 34 N 6143 is concerned, time was afforded to the Insurance Company to get the said documents verified. While dealing with issue no.4, the Tribunal specifically recorded that by means of order dated 30.01.2019, the counsel for the Insurance Company was required to get the driving license duly verified. It has also been noted that in paragraph no.10 of the written submissions filed before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company admitted the fact that the offending tractor was insured with them and that the driving license was also found to be genuine. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the factum of the tractor being insured and the driver having a valid and subsisting license stands established, the appellant cannot deny its liability. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is now well settled and not open to dispute that mere discrepancies in the F.I.R. cannot be taken as a ground to deny compensation when the other foundational facts have clearly been stated and proved in accordance with law. 18. What is significant to note is that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending tractor, despite service, contested the proceedings. The Insurance Company also did not move any application seeking to summon the driver, despite the fact that his name was clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. 19. Any discrepancy insofar as the color of the tractor is concerned, or the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after about two months, will not have any bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as it is not disputed that respondent no.1 suffered from a hip injury and was hospitalized. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any palpable error in the award passed by the Tribunal which may persuade this Court to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. The award dated 28.02.2019 is affirmed. 21. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to pay the awarded amount, in accordance with law, along with up-to-date interest to the claimant-respondent no.1 within six weeks from today, if already not paid. 22. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. (Jaspreet Singh, J) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench