Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7755 Court No. - 4 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 460 of 2018 Appellant :- Kamleshwar Tiwari . Respondent :- Abhishek Verma And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Pandey,Mukesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Mrs. Pooja Arora,Tarun Kumar Misra Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mrs. Pooja Arora, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. None appeared on behalf of other respondents despite sufficient service. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of doubtful involvement of the vehicle on the ground that the number of other vehicle and driving licence was given in the first information report, which was lodged by the brother of the appellant on the intimation given by the appellant, whereas once the vehicle was seized and got released by the same person, the driving licence number of whom was given in the first information report, it cannot be said that the accident was not occurred from the vehicle against which charge sheet was filed. Thus the impugned judgement and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad in the Claim Petition filed by the appellant is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the first information report was lodged on the intimation given by the appellant disclosing the number of vehicle and driving licence number of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident, but charge sheet was filed against other vehicle, therefore, merely because the said vehicle was seized and got released by the same person who was allegedly driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident, it cannot be said that the accident had occurred with the said vehicle, which was subsequently implanted and against which charge sheet was filed. 4. He further submits that even otherwise, the eye witness C.P.W.-2/Avadesh Narain Pandey has also failed to prove the accident as he has stated that he does not know as to from which side the offending vehicle had come. Thus the submission is that the impugned judgement and order has rightly been passed in accordance with law by the Tribunal, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record of this appeal. 6. A first information report bearing Case Crime No.35 of 2016 under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow in regard to the alleged accident on 29.01.2016 at about 09:00 hours at Yadunath Crossing, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow stating that while the appellant was coming from Cantt. Road and going to Alambagh on his motorcycle Glamour bearing registration No.UP41M5477. The first information report was lodged alleging therein that the accident has been caused by the Honda City car bearing registration No.UP32GU1147 of Abhishek Verma, who was running away after the accident and his driving licence number is 47272008. However, the charge sheet was filed against Honda City car bearing registration No.UP32CX1220, which was allegedly got released by Abhishek Verma from the court, but once specific driving licence number along with vehicle number was given in the first information report, which was admittedly lodged on the intimation given by the appellant, it is apparent that the driving licence number must have been noted by the appellant after stopping the car otherwise it was not possible for a person, who is said to have injured in an accident, who was driving the vehicle and fell after accident or he knew the person, whose driving licence number and vehicle number were given. It has also not been disclosed as to how other vehicle number came to light of the police and charge sheet has been filed against the same, therefore, it cannot be said that the involvement of the vehicle is not doubtful in the alleged accident and it has not been implanted subsequently to get the compensation from the insurance company. Even otherwise C.P.W.-2/Avadhesh Narain Pandey, who appeared as an eye witness, though stated that the motorcycle of the appellant was hit by the car from the back side, but he also stated that he does not know as to from which side the car was coming, therefore, the accident has also not been proved by the alleged eye witness. 7. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad now Ayodhya in Claim Petition No.234 of 2016; Registration No.247 of 2016, which may call for any interference by this Court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2025/Anupam S/- Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench