# U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad v. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 976
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 602 of 2011
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-faizabad-v-smt-meena-srivastava-ors-54602
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of incident - Non
production of Station superintendent to
proof the route of Bus - Testimony of
driver - Relevance - Held, the non
production of the station superintendent
may not detain this Court considering the
testimony
of
the
driver
wherein
he
specifically St.d that on 06.09.2007, the
bus returned through Sultanpur and was
4 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad Vs. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
977
also parked in Sultanpur at the roadways
bus station. (Para 30)

B. Practice and procedure - Ground of
challenge, as raised in appeal, was neither
raised before the Tribunal nor described in
memo of appeal - Effect - New ground
was raised that no ticket was found
from the deceased - Permissibility -
Held, the said ground may not detain
this Court considering that once the
learned
Tribunal
has
specifically
indicated about the factum of the
accident having occurred on the said
date
which
involved
Shri
Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava, the deceased, and
having
resulted
in
his
death,
consequently, the said ground is also
rejected. (Para 33 and 34)

C. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of accident -
Proof
of
driver's
involvement
in
accident - St.ment of driver - Filing of
charge-sheet
-
Relevance
-
Bimla
Devi's case, Mangla Ram's case and Dr.
Anoop
Kumar
Bhattacharya's
case
relied upon - Held, even though the
bus driver may not have specifically
averred to the factum of the accident
on 06.09.2007 yet in the charge sheet
which
has
been
filed
against
the
driver, as has been considered by the
learned Tribuanl, it clearly emerges
that the police authorities were of the
view that the driver was involved in
the said accident. (Para 35 and 39)

D. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Award of
compensation
-
Tribunal
awarded
compensation on the basis of salary of
son of deceased, though the salary slip
of the deceased was filed - Validity
challenged - Held, the learned Tribunal
adopted a strange procedure inasmuch
as it has placed reliance on the salary
slip of the son of the deceased who
had been appointed on compassionate
grounds - Award of compensation by
the learned Tribunal on the basis of
the salary of the son of the deceased is
not found to be legally sustainable in
the eyes of law. (Para 42 and 44)
Corporation's Appeal dismissed and
Claimant's Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sheet bolster the allegations contained in
the FIR? These are the factors which
when considered fairly and prudently
could help to assess if the case set up by
the claimants was more probable or not.
As such, we consider it an error to
altogether ignore the said documents on
the ground that they were not conclusive
proof of the occurrence more so since that
is not the goal of claim proceedings in the
first place."
(Emphasis added)

33. As already indicated above, from
perusal
of
the
chargesheet
dated
25.06.2017, which the Court has perused
from the original record, it clearly emerges
that the chargesheet indicates that on
account of negligence of the driver Shri
Shitla Prasad, who was the driver of the
concerned vehicle, the said accident had
taken place. It is also indicated that the
truck concerned has been released on the
orders passed by the learned court. This is
indicative
of
the
connivance
and
involvement of the driver Shitla Prasad in
the said accident and thus keeping in view
the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mangla Ram (supra)
it is apparent that learned tribunal has not
committed any error in arriving at a finding
of the deceased having died on account of
an accident involving the truck.

34. Accordingly, considering the
judgements
of
Bimla
Devi
(supra),
Mangla Ram (supra) and Dr. Anoop
Kumar
Bhattacharya
(supra)
the
judgements of Smt. Hem Lata (supra)
and Kamleshwar Tiwari (supra) may not
detain the Court.

35. Likewise the Division Bench
judgement of this Court in the case
Parshuram Pal (supra) over which
reliance has been placed by learned counsel
for the appellant is also not of any help to
the
appellant
keeping
in
view
the
judgement of Bimla Devi (supra) in this
regard which incidentally has not been
considered by division bench of this court
in the case of Parshuram Pal (supra).

36. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

37. Let trial court records be returned.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 976
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 602 of 2011
And
First Appeal from Order No. 670 of 2011

U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad .. Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
J.B. Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Vivek Kumar Pandey, Amit Tripathi, M.A.
Siddiqui, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of incident - Non
production of Station superintendent to
proof the route of Bus - Testimony of
driver - Relevance - Held, the non
production of the station superintendent
may not detain this Court considering the
testimony
of
the
driver
wherein
he
specifically St.d that on 06.09.2007, the
bus returned through Sultanpur and was
4 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad Vs. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
977
also parked in Sultanpur at the roadways
bus station. (Para 30)

B. Practice and procedure - Ground of
challenge, as raised in appeal, was neither
raised before the Tribunal nor described in
memo of appeal - Effect - New ground
was raised that no ticket was found
from the deceased - Permissibility -
Held, the said ground may not detain
this Court considering that once the
learned
Tribunal
has
specifically
indicated about the factum of the
accident having occurred on the said
date
which
involved
Shri
Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava, the deceased, and
having
resulted
in
his
death,
consequently, the said ground is also
rejected. (Para 33 and 34)

C. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of accident -
Proof
of
driver's
involvement
in
accident - St.ment of driver - Filing of
charge-sheet
-
Relevance
-
Bimla
Devi's case, Mangla Ram's case and Dr.
Anoop
Kumar
Bhattacharya's
case
relied upon - Held, even though the
bus driver may not have specifically
averred to the factum of the accident
on 06.09.2007 yet in the charge sheet
which
has
been
filed
against
the
driver, as has been considered by the
learned Tribuanl, it clearly emerges
that the police authorities were of the
view that the driver was involved in
the said accident. (Para 35 and 39)

D. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Award of
compensation
-
Tribunal
awarded
compensation on the basis of salary of
son of deceased, though the salary slip
of the deceased was filed - Validity
challenged - Held, the learned Tribunal
adopted a strange procedure inasmuch
as it has placed reliance on the salary
slip of the son of the deceased who
had been appointed on compassionate
grounds - Award of compensation by
the learned Tribunal on the basis of
the salary of the son of the deceased is
not found to be legally sustainable in
the eyes of law. (Para 42 and 44)
Corporation's Appeal dismissed and
Claimant's Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

1. FAFO No.434 of 2016; Mohd. Siraj Vs
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow
decided on 21.11.2024

2. Bimla Devi & ors. Vs Himachal Road
Transport Corporation & ors.; 2009 (13)
SCC 530

3. Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & ors. 2018 (5) SCC 656

4. Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya & anr.Vs
National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2021 (12) ADJ 596

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J)

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant as well as Shri Amit Tripathi,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The connected appeal i.e. FAFO
No.670 of 2011 has been filed praying for
enhancement of the awarded amount.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the
contesting parties state that the facts
involved in both the appeals are common.

4. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to
hear and decide both the appeals together
by way of a common judgment. For the
sake of convenience, the facts of the FAFO
No.602 of 2011 are being taken.

5. Under challenge is the judgment
and order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
court No.2, Faizabad in Claim Application
No.257 of 2009 in Re: Smt. Meena
Srivastava and Others Vs. U.P. State
Roadways
Transport
Corporation
and
Others. By the said judgment, learned
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.12,85,000/- in favour of the claimants
along with interest @ 6% per annum.

6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the
facts set forth by learned counsel for the
contesting parties are that an accident
occurred on 06.09.2007 when one Shri
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the husband of
claimant No.1 and the father of the
claimants No.2 & 3 / respondents No.1 to 3
in the appeal, died on account of accident.
The accident is said to have occurred when
the deceased was alighting from a bus No.
UP 42 T3542 around 07:00 in the evening
in front of Seth Petrol Pump, Sultanpur.
As per the claimants, the leg of the
deceased got stuck in the bus while
alighting and the bus started off without
noticing that the leg of the passenger was
stuck in the bus and after driving for
some time, when certain persons stopped
the bus then it was noticed that Shri
Pradeep Kumar Srviastava was seriously
injured. He was shifted to the hospital
where he was declared brought dead.

7. Upon filing of the claim
application,
the
corporation
put
in
appearance and denied the incident. The
sheet anchor of the denial on the part of
the Corporation was that the bus was not
operating on the route in question rather
the route of the bus was Faizabad -
Allahabad and thus it was contended that
once the place at which the incident
occurred in Sultanpur, i.e. opposite of the
petrol pump, did not fall within the ambit
of the route which had to be taken by the
bus, thus, there was no occasion for the
bus to have been involved in an accident
and as such there is no question of any
claim
being
awarded
against
the
Corporation.

8. The learned Tribunal framed
various issues of which issue no.1 was as
to whether on 06.09.2007 at 07:00 P.M.,
Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava while
alighting from the Bus No. UP 42 T3542
fell down and his leg got stuck in the
door of the bus and he was dragged along
with bus and thereafter he died on
account of the injuries sustained by him.

9. Another issue with which the
connected appeal i.e. FAFO No.670 of
2011
is
concerned
is
as
to
the
compensation to which the claimants are
entitled to.

10. Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant had
vehemently argued on issue No.1, which
has been decided in favour of the
claimants, wherein the learned Tribunal has
held that an accident occurred from the bus
in question on the fateful day i.e.
06.09.2007 in which Shri Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava died.

11. The argument of Shri Srivastava is
that the learned Tribunal has failed to
consider the issue on the basis of the
documents that were led by the Corporation
namely a certificate issued by the station
superintendent indicating the route of the
bus, which indicated that the bus was not
operating on the route on which the
accident had occurred rather was operating
on the Faizabad - Allahabad route.

12. Shri Srivastava has also argued
that no bus ticket was recovered from the
possession of the deceased and thus it
cannot be said that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger of the bus from which the
alleged accident itself is said to have
occurred.
4 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad Vs. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
979

13. Another argument of Shri
Srivastava is that the bus driver's testimony
in which he did not indicate anything about
the accident has not been discarded and has
not been considered in this regard to hold
that an accident in fact occurred on the
fateful day i.e. 06.09.2007.

14. No other argument has been
urged.

15. On the other hand, Shri Amit
Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents / claimants has argued that
C.P.W.- 2 Shri Vijay Kumar(witness),
who has appeared to depose before the
learned Tribunal, had specifically indicated
that he was present on the spot on
06.09.2007 at around 07:00 P.M. and he
had witnessed the said accident in detail in
which on account of negligence on the part
of the bus driver in having started driving
the bus although the leg of Shri Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava was stuck in the door of
the bus which resulted in Shri Pradeep
Kumar Srivasata sustaining serious injuries
and having subsequently died.

16. It is contended that the statement
of Shri Vijay Kumar could not be rebutted
by the Corporation nor any lacunae was
found in the said statement and the learned
Tribunal has correctly proceeded to hold
that the accident took place on the fateful
day.

17. So far as the ground that no ticket
was found from the person of the deceased,
it is argued that the said plea was never
taken either before the learned Tribunal or
in the instant appeal which has been filed
by the Corporation and consequently, it is
too late in the day to take the said plea for
the first time.

18. Even otherwise, it is submitted
that considering the judgment of the
learned Tribunal as well as the statement of
Shri Vijay Kumar (C.P.W.-2), the accident
in fact occurred on the fateful day and thus
the
learned
Tribunal
has
correctly
proceeded to award the compensation in
favour of the claimants.

19. So far as the argument of Shri
Srivastava that the bus driver's testimony
has not been discarded, learned counsel for
the claimant has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court passed in FAFO
No.434 of 2016 in Re: Mohd. Siraj Vs.
Motor
Accident
Claim
Tribunal,
Lucknow on 21.11.2024 wherein this
Court, on the basis of the judgment of
Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation and Others
2009 (13) SCC 530, has specifically held
that the strict proof of an accident caused
by a particular bus in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the
claimants and that the claimants are only
required to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability.

20. As regards the route of the bus
being Faizabad - Allahabad and no accident
could have occurred in Sultanpur, as is
argued by learned counsel for the appellant,
the argument of Shri Tripathi is that the
statement of the bus driver, as indicated in
the judgement of the learned Tribunal,
would itself indicate that the bus driver has
accepted that on 06.09.2007 he had
returned back through Sultanpur and that
on the fateful day, the bus in the question
was also parked at the roadways bus stand
at Sultanpur, which has prevailed upon the
learned Tribunal to hold that the accident
took place from the bus in question at
Sultanpur.
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Learned counsel for the claimant
has also placed reliance on the charge sheet
which has been filed against the concerned
driver and has also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited & Others
2018 (5) SCC 656 to contend that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that filing
of a charge sheet against a particular person
would prima facie points towards his
complicity
in
driving
the
vehicle
negligently and rashly.

22. Reliance has also been placed on a
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the
case
of
Dr.
Anoop
Kumar
Bhattacharya & Another Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (12) ADJ 596 to
contend that the Division Bench of this
Court has held that the documents such as
the F.I.R., the Site map and the chargesheet, which form part of the police record,
even though they may not establish the
occurrence when considered holistically
and prudently could help draw an informed
and intelligent inference as to the degree of
probability which lends itself to the case set
up by a claimant.

23. Learned counsel for the claimant
has also argued on the third issue as has
been framed by the learned Tribunal, i.e.
the amount of compensation to which the
claimants are entitled to, in his appeal i.e.
FAFO No.670 of 2011 which pertains to
enhancement of the compensation.

24. It is contended that although the
salary slip of the deceased, who was
working as Junior Engineer in the U.P.
Power Corporation, was filed which
indicated his salary as Rs.54,143/- yet the
learned Tribunal was of the view that as the
said salary slip had not been proved, as
such, no reliance could be placed upon the
same and in turn the learned Tribunal has
placed reliance on the salary slip of the son
of the claimant who had been given
compassionate appointment on account of
the death of his father namely Shri Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava (deceased) and his salary
has been considered for the award of
compensation. Placing reliance on the
salary of the son of the deceased, the salary
of the deceased has been determined at
Rs.20,000/- per month which is in stark
contrast to the actual salary that has been
indicated in the salary slip of Rs.54,143/-
and thus, it is contended that the learned
Tribunal has patently erred in law in
awarding compensation on such basis.

25. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record.

26. From the argument as raised by
learned counsels for the parties and a
perusal of the record, it emerges that an
accident is said to have occurred on
06.09.2007 which resulted in the death of
Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava.

27. Upon filing of the claim
application by the wife and the sons of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal had framed
an issue as to whether on 06.09.2007, an
accident had occurred with Bus No.
UP42T3542 on account of the negligence
of the bus driver.

28. The said issue has been decided in
favour of the claimants.

29. The said findings have been
challenged by means of the instant appeal
by the Corporation on the grounds that (a)
the accident is said to have occurred in
Sultanpur while as per the bus route,
Sultanpur did not fall on its route as the bus
4 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad Vs. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
981
was having a route of Faizabad -Allahabad;
(b) the deceased was not found to have any
bus ticket; (c) the bus driver's testimony has
not been discarded.

30. So far as the ground (a) is
concerned, the Corporation in support of
the bus being operated on Faizabad -
Allahabad route had placed reliance on the
certificate
issued
by
the
station
superintendent indicating the route of the
bus in question. Incidentally, the station
superintendent was never produced as a
witness
before
the learned Tribunal.
Moreover, the non production of the station
superintendent may not detain this Court
considering the testimony of the driver
wherein he specifically stated that on
06.09.2007, the bus returned through
Sultanpur and was also parked in Sultanpur
at the roadways bus station.

31. Even otherwise, a witness namely
Shri Vijay Kumar has clearly deposed of
the accident having taken place on
06.09.2007 at 07:00 P.M. and he having
witnessed the entire accident in which the
leg of the deceased got stuck in the door of
the bus and he was dragged for some time
which resulted in the deceased getting
grievously injured and subsequently having
died.

32. However, the said issue may not
detain the Court much longer considering
the specific finding of fact as has been
given by the learned Tribunal of the
accident having occurred on the fateful day
with the bus in question considering the
testimony of the driver and the witness
namely Shri Vijay Kumar. Thus, the said
ground raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is rejected.

33. So far as the ground (b) is
concerned that no ticket was found from
the deceased, it would be suffice to state
that both before the learned Tribunal as
well as before this Court, no ground in this
regard has been taken. The Court has
carefully gone through the grounds as have
been taken by the Corporation while filing
the instant appeal which run from ground A
to O but the said ground does find place in
the appeal also.

34. Even otherwise, the said ground
may not detain this Court considering that
once the learned Tribunal has specifically
indicated about the factum of the accident
having occurred on the said date which
involved Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,
the deceased, and having resulted in his
death, consequently, the said ground is also
rejected.

35. So far as the ground (c) is
concerned that the bus driver's testimony
has not been discarded, it would be suffice
to state that the bus driver in his statement
has categorically stated about the bus
having returned through Sultanpur and
having been parked at Sultanpur Roadways
Bus Depot. Even though the bus driver may
not have specifically averred to the factum
of the accident on 06.09.2007 yet in the
charge sheet which has been filed against
the driver, as has been considered by the
learned Tribuanl, it clearly emerges that the
police authorities were of the view that the
driver was involved in the said accident.

36. In this regard, it would be apt to
refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi
(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"15. In a situation of this nature,
the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic
view of the matter. It was necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a
particular manner may not be possible to
be done by the claimants. The claimants
were merely to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability.
The standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied. For the
said purpose, the High Court should have
taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties."

37. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mangla Ram (supra)
has held as under:-

"27.
Another
reason
which
weighted with the High Court to interfere
in the first appeal filed by respondents 2 &
3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal
about the factum of negligence of the driver
of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is
untenable. Our understanding of the
analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold
that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly
and negligently by respondent 2 when it
collided with the motorcycle of the
appellant leading to the accident. This can
be discerned from the evidence of witnesses
and the contents of the charge-sheet file by
the police, naming Respondent 2. This
Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes,
noted
that
the
plea
of
negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle as set up by the claimants
was required to be decided by the Tribunal
on the touchstone of preponderance or
probability and certainly not by standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to
observe
that
the
exposition
in
the
judgements already adverted to by us, filing
of charge-sheet against Respondent 2
prima facie points towards his complicity in
driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal cases, this Court
opined that the same may be of no effect on
the assessment of the liability required in
respect of motor accident cases by the
Tribunal."
(Emphasis added)

38. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Dr. Anoop Kumar
Bhattacharya (supra) has held as under:-

"29. We may now revert to the
original question whether Tribunal was
correct in altogether excluding from
evidence the documents such as the FIR,
the site plan and the charge-sheet, which
form part of the police record.

30. We have no doubt in our mind
that the answer to the aforesaid question
must be a resounding 'No'. The Tribunal
opted to ignore the FIR, the charge-sheet
and the site plan on the ground that they do
not establish either that the driver of the
offending truck was involved in the
accident or that he was guilty of rash and
negligent driving. In our opinion, the
Tribunal would have been correct had the
standard of proof in claim proceedings
been that of beyond reasonable doubt as is
the case with criminal proceedings. Even in
a criminal proceedings, these documents
may be considered to corroborate the
evidence led in the Court and not to be
completely disregarded or ignored. In any
case, corroborative value of the police
record cannot be ignored completely
though decision may not be based solely
upon them. Moreover, the standard of proof
in the claim proceedings is not that of proof
beyond reasonable doubt but that of
preponderance
of
probabilities.
The
Tribunal on assessment of evidence before
4 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad Vs. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
983
it had to satisfy itself that it was more likely
than not that the events as alleged in the
claim petition had transpired. To our mind,
the documents such as the FIR, the site
map and the charge-sheet, which form
part of the police record, even though they
do not establish the occurrence when
considered holistically and prudently
could help draw an informed and
intelligent inference as to the degree of
probability which lends itself to the case
set up by a claimant. Was the FIR promptly
lodged or was it lodged after an undue
delay? Does the site plan conform to the
recital contained in the FIR? Do injuries
sustained corroborate the recital contained
in the FIR? Does the charge-sheet bolster
the allegations contained in the FIR? These
are the factors which when considered
fairly and prudently could help to assess if
the case set up by the claimants was more
probable or not. As such, we consider it an
error to altogether ignore the said
documents on the ground that they were
not conclusive proof of the occurrence
more sosince that is not the goal of claim
proceedings in the first place."
(Emphasis added)

39. Accordingly, considering the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mangla Ram (supra)
as well as in the case of Bimla Devi
(supra) as well as the Division Bench
judgment in the case of Dr. Anoop Kumar
Bhattacharya (supra), the ground (c)
taken by the appellant is also rejected.

40. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant
- Corporation i.e. FAFO No.602 of 2011 is
dismissed.

41. So far as the appeal filed by the
claimants is concerned, the said appeal
revolves around issue No.3 which pertains
to the compensation as has been awarded in
favour of claimants.

42. A perusal of the discussion on
issue No.3 would indicate that although a
salary slip was filed on behalf of the
claimants indicating that the deceased was
employed in the U.P. Power Corporation as
a junior engineer and as per his salary slip,
he was in receipt of an amount of
Rs.54,143/- as salary yet the learned
Tribunal was of the view that the said
salary slip could not be relied on as the
same has not been proved. The learned
Tribunal adopted a strange procedure
thereafter inasmuch as it has placed
reliance on the salary slip of the son of the
deceased who had been appointed on
compassionate grounds. On the basis of
deceased's son's salary slip, the learned
Tribunal has opined that the salary of the
deceased
would
be
Rs.20,000/-
and
thereafter,
the
learned
Tribunal
has
proceeded to award the compensation.

43. The analogy adopted by the
learned Tribunal in order to arrive at the
salary of the deceased is not found to be
legally sustainable in any view of the
matter inasmuch as the deceased, who was
aged about 54 years, was at the fag end of
his service while his son has only been
appointed on account of the death of Shri
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (deceased) and
was an infant in the service and by no
stretch of imagination could the salary of a
young employee, the son of the deceased,
would be comparable with the salary of an
officer who was at the fag end of his
service.

44. Thus, the award of compensation
by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the
salary of the son of the deceased is not
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
found to be legally sustainable in the eyes
of law.

45. Accordingly, the case is remitted
to the learned Tribunal to consider the
award of compensation in accordance with
law. As the claim application is of the year
2009 and a substantial period has already
lapsed, as such, the learned Tribunal is
directed
to
decide
the
said
claim
application
pertaining
to
award
of
compensation in accordance with law and
the relevant rules within a period of six
months from the date a certified copy of
this order is brought on record of the
learned Tribunal.

46. With the observations as made
above, the appeal i.e. FAFO No.670 of
2011 stands disposed of.

47. Also, considering the long
pendency of the claim application before
the learned Trial and thereafter before this
Court and considering the order of this
Court dated 05.07.2011 whereby half of the
amount, as awarded before the learned
Tribunal, was directed to be deposited
before
the
learned
Tribunal,
the
claimants are permitted to withdraw the
amount which was deposited before the
learned Tribunal in accordance with law
and the relevant rules which would be
subject to the order(s) being passed by
the learned Tribunal in pursuance to the
directions made above.

48. The records be returned back
as per procedure.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 984
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,
J.
THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Government Appeal No. 43 of 2025

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Pushpendra alias Gabbar ..Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashutosh Kumar Sand

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mukesh Kumar Pandey

A. Criminal Appeal against acquittal - When
interference may be offered by the High
Court in appeal against acquittal - High
Court must be satisfied that the finding
recorded by the learned trial court suffers
from the vice of perversity. Once that
satisfaction is reached, the High Court must
further reappraise the evidence through a
prism that
may
allow
for a singular
conclusion of guilt to arise upon such
reappraisal of evidence. It must also be
strong enough to be described as nearly
absolute, as may not only discard the
presumption of innocence that the accused
enjoys at the beginning of the trial but also
dispel the confirmation of such innocence
offered by the order of acquittal. Such
conclusion must be free from any benefit of
doubt that may arise to the accused on the
strength of evidence led at the trial. Where
a finding of fact may be recorded either
dehors the evidence or contrary to the
evidence, or where conclusions may have
been drawn contrary to the law, that
finding and/or conclusion may be described
as perverse. (Para 38, 39, 40)

B.
Evidence
Act,1872
-
Minor
inconsistencies - It is not the law that
prosecution witness must maintain their
consistent stand by way of an empirical
truth, to establish the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses or version. The settled
principle in that regard is that evidence must
carry a ring of truth. Minor inconsistencies are