HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3414 of 2008 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohan Yadav holding brief of Mr. Shikhar Awasthi and Mr. Ajay Singh and Mr. Shrivastav for the respondents. 2. The present First Appeal From Order is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.08.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar, in Claim Petition No. 670 of 1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant has been rejected by the learned Tribunal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased, Suresh Kumar Shankwar, after taking his breakfast at about 6:00 a.m. on 12.09.1999, went outside his house for a walk. When he reached near Hari Masjid, Barra, District Kanpur, at about 7:30 a.m., a tanker bearing Registration No. UP- 78-T-1153, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came and knocked down the deceased. He was immediately rushed to a nearby nursing home, where he was declared dead by the doctor. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the Tribunal accepted the factum of the accident, it dismissed the claim petition on an erroneous premise, holding that the eyewitness produced by the claimant was not reliable. It was submitted that PW-3, Raghvendra Singh @ Chheda Lal, had witnessed the accident at the spot. His deposition is sufficient to demonstrate that he was present at the spot and had not only witnessed the accident but had also noted the registration number of the offending vehicle. He was cross-examined by the respondents, but they were unable to elicit Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Singh, Radhey Shyam, Shreesh Srivastava Smt. Kiran Sankhwar And Others .....Appellant(s) Ashok Kumar Pandey And Others .....Respondent(s) anything substantial so as to discredit his testimony. It was further submitted that the FIR in the present case was duly lodged, but the same was also disbelieved by the learned Tribunal without assigning any proper reason. It was submitted that the testimony of PW-3 was discarded on the ground that, despite being acquainted with the deceased and his family members, he had failed to immediately inform them about the accident. The said finding is perverse and unsustainable. It is not necessary that each and every eyewitness or victim should react in the same manner or in accordance with the assumptions and presumptions of others. Therefore, merely because this witness did not go to the house of the claimant immediately after the accident to inform them about the same, his testimony cannot, on that ground alone, be considered suspicious or doubtful. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the deposition of PW-3 is not reliable. There are contradictions in his testimony which render it doubtful. He did not state in his examination-in-chief that the deceased or his family members were previously known to him, but stated contrary facts in his cross-examination and deposed that he knew them prior to the accident. He also stated that he left the spot after the accident and went to the house of his employer, whose tempo he was driving as a driver. Therefore, the deposition of this witness was rightly discarded by the learned Tribunal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 7. It is apparent that the alleged accident occurred on 12.09.1999 and that the First Information Report lodged in respect of the said accident does not mention the registration number of the offending vehicle. Three witnesses were produced by the claimant to prove the accident. Smt. Kiran Shankwar was examined as PW-1. She is the wife of the deceased and stated that she had not witnessed the alleged accident, as she was at home. The brother of the deceased, Narendra Kumar, was examined as PW-2. He deposed that he went to the spot after receiving information about the accident and thereafter immediately went to the concerned nursing home, where he was informed that his brother had been admitted. Thereafter, he reached the police station and lodged the FIR. When this witness was cross-examined, he stated that FAFO No. 3414 of 2008 2 PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, arrived at his house on the following day and informed him about the registration number of the offending vehicle. Contrary to this, PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, deposed that he went to the house of the deceased on the same day in the evening and informed the family members of the registration number of the offending vehicle. 8. It is pertinent to mention that the examination-in-chief of PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, reveals that the family members of the deceased and the said witness were not known to each other prior to the accident. However, he stated contrary facts in his cross-examination and deposed that they were known to him prior to the accident. The testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, if examined in their entirety, demonstrate that they are inconsistent and contrary to each other. If the vehicle number was known to the parties by any means, the question arises as to why PW-2 omitted to mention the vehicle number in the FIR. The claimant has failed to offer any plausible explanation in this regard. The deposition of PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, as an eyewitness, if examined in its entirety, leads to the conclusion that neither was he present at the spot nor had he informed the family members of the deceased about the accident or the registration number of the offending vehicle. Had he known the deceased and his family members prior to the accident, there was no reason for him to leave the spot immediately after the accident. 9. It is apparent that the version of the claimant regarding the presence of this witness at the spot is not trustworthy and that this witness was subsequently produced by the claimant to prove his case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, discarding the deposition of PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, does not warrant any interference. 10. Accordingly, this First Appeal From Order is dismissed. September 25, 2026 Mukesh FAFO No. 3414 of 2008 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad