Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39256 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 908 of 2012 Appellant :- National Insurance Comp Ltd. Thru Its Astt.Manager Respondent :- Smt. Sunita Mishra And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Gulati Counsel for Respondent :- Mayank Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Mrs.Pooja Arora appearing under the authority of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Since, the appeal is of the year, 2012, accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear learned counsel for the appellant. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the factum of the accident was not proved. Under challenge is the appeal U/s 173 of the M.V. Act 1988, is the award dated 30.05.2012 passed by the MACT Lucknow in Claim Petition no.245 of 2008 whereby in a death case the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,49,500/- alongwith 6% p.a interest to the claimants/respondent. It is alleged that the accident took place on 05.02.2008 at around 11.00 p.m whereas the first information report which was lodged by the family members of the deceased was the first documentary evidence in point of time to indicate the manner in which the accident had occurred. In the FIR, it was stated that the accident occurred from an unknown vehicle. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to have initiated proceedings against the alleged owner of the vehicle bearing UP65AH3865. It is submitted that an attempt was made to improve the case and since the FIR was lodged by the claimant themselves and filed before the claim tribunal, hence this fact had to be taken note of that the vehicle with which accident had occurred, its registration number was not mentioned in the FIR, accordingly, once the factum itself is disputed and was not proved in accordance with law, there was no occasion to grant any compensation and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. This fact has not been considered by the tribunal while passing the award which deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the aforesaid solitary question and in order to ascertain the veracity thereof it will be appropriate to take note of the brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal. It was a case of the claimants that Dinesh Chandra Mishra (deceased) was riding a vehicle bearing U.P.65AH3865 and accident occurred on 05.02.2008 at around 11.00 p.m near Gram-Veriya Bahraich Gonda road. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently which came and dashed against the vehicle wherein the deceased was travelling as part of group who had gone to attend a wedding ceremony. It is in this context that the legal heirs of the deceased had instituted C.P. 245 of 2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Lucknow. Upon notices being issued to owner/driver as well as Insurance Company, they filed their respective written statements denying the factum of the accident. Upon the exchange of pleadings the tribunal framed several issues. What is the significant to note at this stage, is that the claimants had led their evidence both oral as well as documentary evidence but no evidence either oral or documentary was led by any of defendants that is to say either by the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle or the Insurance Company. Considering the material available on record, the tribunal found that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing U.P.65AH3865. It also found that the said vehicle was duly insured and the driver had valid and a subsisting licence. The tribunal thereafter considered the quantum and has awarded sum of Rs.6,49,500/- along with 6% interest. It is this award dated 30.05.2012 which is under challenge before this Court. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, apparently, it would indicate that the FIR was lodged by the family members of the deceased. It is true that the said FIR did not mention the vehicle number but the fact remains that FIR is not to be construed as a binding document against the appellant for the reason that it is neither an encyclopedia nor it is to be considered in the manner that it is an admission which binds the claimants in respect of the fact mentioned therein. It will also be pertinent to point out that the factum of the accident was reported, therefore, it is merely a first information which is given to the authority to put the criminal justice system into motion and nothing more. The proceedings before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal being part of the Social Welfare Scheme is to be construed in a manner which advances the cause of justice and not to thwart it. This fact apart the claimants had examined the witnesses who were duly cross examined by the respondents but the fact remains that there is no material on record nor any statement in the evidence which could cast a doubt over the veracity of the statement or the foundational fact relating to the occurrence of the accident and the death, as a cause itself. Once this foundational fact was available in no uncertain terms it was only expected of the tribunal to have proceeded to compute the compensation. As far as the claimant is concerned, there is no dispute raised by the counsel for the appellant nor it was disputed that the vehicle was not insured or the driver did not possess a valid or subsisting licence. In the aforesaid circumstances, where practically the foundational facts required to succeed in claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V Act having been proved and more significantly that there was no evidence at all either by the driver or the owner of the vehicle or by the Insurance Company to controvert the same, hence, it cannot be said that the tribunal has recorded any finding which is against the weight of material available on record. In the aforesaid circumstances as well as taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court in case Sunita & Ors vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr; (2020) 13 SCC 486 which has further being considered by a subsequent decisions of the Apex Court in Bimla Devi and Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SCC 530, Anita Sharma and Ors vs New India Assurance Company Ltd and another; (2021) 1 SCC 171 and Janabai wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade vs. ICICI Lombord Insurance Company Ltd; (2022) 10 SCC 512, this Court finds that there is no error committed by the tribunal while passing the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 30.05.2012 passed in Claim Petition no.245 of 2008 by M.A.C.T Lucknow is affirmed. Any amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant respondents as per the award and any short fall with up to date interest shall also be made good by the appellants within a period of 60 days from today. The record of the tribunal shall be returned forthwith, consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 10.7.2025/Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench