IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.11.2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Harminder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been preferred by the insurer assailing the award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereina8er referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of ₹9,06,492/- along with interest was awarded in favour of the claimants under Sec=on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Briefly stated, the case arises out of a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 15.12.2018, resul=ng in the death of Gurvinder Singh. His widow and son filed a claim pe==on seeking compensa=on, alleging that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor- trolley No. HR-31-D-7970, driven and owned by Satbir Singh (respondent No.3 herein). The said vehicle was insured with the appellant company.

3. The driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte. The appellant-insurer, however, contested the claim pe==on primarily on the ground that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were collusive, allegedly ini=ated in connivance with the claimants, the police, and the owner-cum-driver to falsely implicate the insured vehicle and to extract compensa=on.

4. Upon considera=on of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley No. HR-31-D-7970 and accordingly, awarded the compensa=on as aforesaid.

5. In appeal, the insurer has not disputed the quantum of compensa=on but confined its challenge to the finding of involvement of the insured vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the vehicle was falsely implicated, that PW-2 Partap Singh was a planted witness, who had not actually witnessed the occurrence, and that Rajbir Singh, who was accompanying the deceased at the =me of accident, was withheld. It is also argued that the statement of PW-2 was recorded belatedly a8er 18 days and that such delay casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecu=on version.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and carefully examined the record.

7. It is a seIled principle that in proceedings under Sec=on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the issue of rash and negligent driving is to be adjudicated not on the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as applicable in criminal trials, but on the touchstone of preponderance of probabili=es. The Tribunal is en=tled to rely on the FIR, site plan, charge- sheet, and other police papers for determining negligence unless clear and convincing evidence to the contrary is produced. Reference may be made to Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corpora(cid:26)on and Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 530; and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 599, wherein it has been consistently held that cer=fied copies of criminal record such as FIR and charge-sheet are sufficient to infer negligence in absence of rebuIal evidence.

8. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly no=ced that although the FIR was lodged a day a8er the occurrence and did not ini=ally men=on the registra=on number of the offending vehicle, the subsequent inves=ga=on iden=fied the tractor-trolley No. HR-31-D-7970 and its driver Satbir Singh, who was also facing trial in the corresponding criminal case. The insurer’s plea of collusion stands negated by its own inves=ga=on report (Ex.R-3) placed on record, which acknowledges the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the insured vehicle. Once the insurer’s own inves=gator corroborated the accident, the allega=on of fabrica=on loses its force.

9. As regards the alleged delay in recording the statement of PW- 2 Partap Singh, the T