Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90767 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1242 of 2013 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Rajwati Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Shashi Dhar Pandey Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the appellant is present. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 02.02.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Firozabad in M.A.C.P. No.374 of 2011, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,56,300/- along with 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition 4. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the involvement of the offending vehicle, namely, Motorcycle No.U.P.86-J-2630 is doubtful. It is contended that the testimony of PW2 who was said to be the eye witness of the accident is contradictory and is not reliable. 5. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the vehicle No. U.P. 84E-9435 and in the FIR, name of the driver was shown as Ospal Singh, whereas the charge sheet had been filed against the vehicle No. U.P.86-J-2630. It is submitted that it is evident from the testimony of PW2 that both the vehicles belong to one family, and therefore, in order to fetch compensation, vehicle No.U.P.86-J-2630 has been implicated. 6. Be that as it may, PW2 who was the eye witness of the alleged accident appeared before the Tribunal and he deposed that the accident had taken place by vehicle No. U.P.86-J-2630. The testimony of PW2 is corroborated by the charge sheet filed by the police against the vehicle No.U.P.86-J-2630. 7. The Insurance Company has placed reliance only upon the version of the FIR, but did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of PW2. The testimony of PW2 is unrebutted, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the testimony of PW2 in concluding that the alleged accident had taken place by vehicle No.U.P.86-J-2630. The finding returned by the Tribunal is a finding of fact, based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not warrant any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 8. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 NS Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad