HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 748 of 2016 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 09.11.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jhansi, in MACP No. 582 of 2013. 3. The accident took place on 26.08.2013 at about 7:30 P.M., when the deceased, Rajendra Prasad, was standing on the roadside. He was hit by a truck bearing Registration No. MP-53 H-103. The deceased succumbed to his injuries after a few hours. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the negligence of the offending vehicle was duly proved and, accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 9,31,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was asserted by the claimants that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was in the company of PW-2 ( Ram Ballabh) and PW-3 ( Rafeeq). PW-2 and PW-3 ( Rafeeq) were examined before the Tribunal. Their statements were contradictory with regard to the manner of occurrence and, therefore, were not worthy of reliance. PW-2 deposed that the accident occurred when the truck came from the opposite direction and knocked down the deceased. On the other hand, PW-3 stated that the deceased was knocked down by the truck which was coming from behind. Although the learned Tribunal had observed that their statements were contradictory, it had discarded the said contradiction as being immaterial. It was further submitted that both the witnesses admitted Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Siddarth Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Upadhyay, Kapil Kumar Soni, Vinod Kumar United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Smt. Sunita And 5 Ors. .....Respondent(s) before the Tribunal that they were illiterate and were neither able to read nor write. Therefore, it was not possible for them to note down the registration number of the offending vehicle. It was submitted that the version asserted by the claimants is concocted and was put forward before the Tribunal with the intention of obtaining compensation on false grounds, and that the award passed by the learned Tribunal, being based upon unreliable evidence, is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal has carefully considered the contradictions occurring in the statements of both the witnesses and has held that such contradictions are minor in nature and cannot be taken into account for discarding the factum of the accident. The said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is reasonable and does not call for any interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The contradictions appearing in the depositions of both the eyewitnesses may, at first sight, appear to be material. However, what is significant is to consider whether such contradictions, in cases arising out of motor accidents, are so material as to warrant discarding the factum of the accident. An accident always occurs suddenly, and the victim or eyewitness is taken by surprise upon witnessing such an incident. Moreover, it cannot be expected from a witness who has recovered from the shock of the accident to narrate the exact sequence of events witnessed by him at the relevant time. A witness cannot be expected to remember and narrate every detail of the occurrence immediately after the lapse of time. 8. Similarly, if two eyewitnesses are present at the spot at the same time and witness the same incident, there is every possibility of some variation in their respective depositions. Therefore, the contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not so material as to warrant discarding the factum of the accident. 9. It is also relevant to note that an FIR was lodged in the case, and a charge-sheet against the offending vehicle and its driver was subsequently submitted by the police. Therefore, upon considering the entire evidence on record in its totality, the same cannot be held to be doubtful or unreliable. FAFO No. 748 of 2016 2 10. In the given circumstances, merely because there are certain contradictions in the statements of two eyewitnesses, or because they admitted that they were neither able to read nor write, the factum of the accident, which has been duly proved before the Tribunal, cannot be discarded. 11. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is upheld. Consequently, this First Appeal From Order is dismissed. September 11, 2026 Mukesh FAFO No. 748 of 2016 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad