Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90374 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1645 of 2021 Appellant :- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd Respondent :- Roop Lal And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 21.01.2021 passed by Presiding Officer/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.130 of 2012 (Roop Lal and another Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others). 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant case, the deceased was riding motorcycle No.U.P.78-A.M.-6438 and he suffered injuries as he slipped from the motorcycle, and because of the injuries suffered by him, he died. It is contended that no accident had taken place with Maruti Car No. U.P.78-BX-1974 and it is a case of false implication of the Maruti Car. 4. It is further submitted that it is evident from the report of Tulsi Hospital Ltd., Civil Lines, Kanpur where the deceased was admitted after the accident, which states that the deceased fell from the motorcycle, due to which he suffered grievous injuries. It is contended that the testimony of PW3 is not credible as PW3 is an interested witness, and thus, it is a case of false implication of Maruti Car No. U.P.78-BX-1974, and the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the alleged accident had place by the Maruti Car No. U.P.78-BX-1974. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the police did not register the F.I.R. and therefore, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed for registering the F.I.R., and on the basis of said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. was registered. It is contended that thereafter the investigation was conducted by the police, and police found the occurrence of the accident to be true. It is further submitted that PW3 has appeared before the Tribunal and deposed that the deceased had met with an accident with Maruti Car No. U.P.78-BX-1974. 6. Be that as it may, the Tribunal while concluding that the alleged accident had taken place, has placed reliance upon the fact that the F.I.R. with regard to the alleged accident was registered on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the police in which the police found the occurrence to be true. 7. PW3 also appeared before the Tribunal who was said to be the eye witness of the accident, who deposed that the alleged accident had taken place by Maruti Car No. U.P.78-BX-1974. The testimony of PW3 is unrebutted inasmuch as no evidence was led by the appellant to rebut the testimony of PW3. 8. So far as the report of Tulsi Hospital Ltd. on which the reliance has been placed by the appellant is concerned, the report only states that the deceased slipped from his motorcycle, due to which he suffered grievous injuries. However, this report was not proved in accordance with law, and therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in not placing reliance upon the report of Tulsi Hospital Ltd. . 9. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of occurrence with Maruti Car No. U.P.78-BX-1974 is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, therefore, this Court is of the view that no case for interference in the award is made out. 10. Accordingly, the First Appeal From Order is is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 NS Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad