Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs Malkit Kaur And Ors.

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)


Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant
Versus
Malkit Kaur and others ...Respondents

Reserved on: 03.11.2026

Pronounced on: 12.11.2026
Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate and
Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4.


DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company against the
award dated 13.11.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jalandhar, whereby compensation of ₹65,02,792/- along with interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization has been
awarded to respondents No.1 to 4 on account of death of Raghubir Singh in a
motor vehicular accident dated 25.05.2018. The liability to satisfy the award
has been fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of Mahindra Bolero
Pickup bearing registration No.JK-08-E-1757, jointly and severally.
2. The claim petition was instituted by Malkit Kaur, widow of
deceased Raghubir Singh, along with their three children, under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act. It was pleaded that on 25.05.2018 at about 5:30 PM,
Raghubir Singh was returning from his workplace at Canara Bank, Tanda, on
motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-08-DB-1790. His wife Malkit Kaur and
son Karanpreet Singh were following him on a separate Activa scooter. When
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 1 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
the deceased reached near village Dhadha Sanaura on the Jalandhar–
Pathankot National Highway, a Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration
No.JK-08-E-1757, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by respondent
Suresh Kumar, struck his motorcycle from behind. Raghubir Singh sustained
serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to them while being shifted to
hospital.
3. FIR No.82 dated 25.05.2018 under Sections 279, 304-A and 427
IPC was registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. However, the
FIR was registered against an unidentified driver of an unidentified vehicle. The
registration number of the Mahindra Bolero Pickup, now alleged to be the
offending vehicle, was not mentioned therein.
4. The driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle did not
contest the proceedings before the Tribunal and were proceeded against ex
parte. The appellant–Insurance Company contested the claim petition,
specifically disputing the involvement of the insured vehicle and alleging that it
had been falsely implicated in connivance with the claimants and other
persons to obtain compensation.
5. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, returned findings in
favour of the claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation.
6. Assailing the award of the Tribunal, Learned counsel for the
appellant contends that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate material
discrepancies going to the root of the claim. It is submitted that the initial
version disclosed an accident involving an unidentified car, whereas the
vehicle subsequently implicated is a Mahindra Bolero Single Cab Pickup, which
is a light commercial vehicle. The identity of the alleged offending vehicle
surfaced approximately two and a half months after the occurrence, upon the
statement of Satpal Singh, who claimed to have witnessed the accident.
7. It is further contended that Satpal Singh, examined as PW-2,
admittedly did not report the registration number of the vehicle to the police
immediately after the occurrence. His statement regarding the accident was
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
recorded much later. The police, after investigation, prepared an untraced
report Ex.RX, as the vehicle responsible for the accident could not be
identified. According to learned counsel, the subsequent introduction of the
insured vehicle, notwithstanding the earlier police investigation, creates
serious doubt about its involvement.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the mere fact that vehicle
No.JK-08-E-1757 passed through a toll plaza on the relevant date does not
establish that it was involved in the accident. The Tribunal has also erred in
drawing an adverse inference from the non-appearance of the driver and
owner and in treating such non-appearance as an admission of the accident.
Reliance has been placed upon United India Insurance Company Limited v.
Rajendra Singh and others , (2000) 3 SCC 581 , and other authorities dealing
with fraudulent motor accident claims.
9. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents supports the
findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence, contending that issue is
required to be adjudicated on the standard of preponderance of evidence and
that there is no scope for interference in the findings of the Tribunal.
10. This court has considered submissions of both the sides and has
appraised the record carefully.
11. The controversy requiring determination is whether the claimants
have established the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and whether the circumstances
brought on record justify the inference that the vehicle was subsequently
introduced to obtain compensation.
12. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal position that
proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not criminal
trials. The claimants are not required to prove the occurrence beyond
reasonable doubt. Their case is to be examined on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard may be made to
Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others ,
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
(2009) 13 SCC 530; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
others , (2018) 5 SCC 656; and Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and another , (2020) 13 SCC 486.
13. However, the aforesaid principle does not dispense with the
requirement of establishing the involvement of the particular vehicle against
whose driver, owner and insurer compensation is claimed. There is a
distinction between relaxing the standard of proof and dispensing with proof
altogether. The beneficial nature of the legislation cannot justify fastening
liability upon an insurer merely because the death occurred in a motor
vehicular accident. Where the identity of the offending vehicle itself is
seriously disputed, the evidence connecting that vehicle with the occurrence
must be examined with due care.
14. In the present case, the death of Raghubir Singh in a road accident
on 25.05.2018 is not seriously in dispute. The post-mortem report and other
contemporaneous evidence establish the occurrence of the fatal accident. The
real controversy concerns the identity of the vehicle responsible for causing it.
15. It is important that Malkit Kaur, who claims to have been
following the motorcycle of her husband, admittedly stated before the police
that the accident had been caused by a car, whose registration number and
make could not be noticed. In her cross-examination as PW-1, she
acknowledged that the registration number of the subsequently implicated
vehicle was disclosed to her by the police after approximately two to three
months. She further admitted that, after acquiring such knowledge, she
neither made any statement to the police specifically identifying the vehicle
nor approached the higher police authorities with any complaint regarding its
involvement.
16. The inability of a person to note the registration number of a
vehicle immediately after a serious accident is, by itself, neither unusual nor
sufficient to discredit a claim. Equally, an incorrect description of the vehicle in
the FIR may not necessarily be fatal. However, these circumstances assume
YOGESH MEHTA significance, when the initially unidentified vehicle is subsequently identified
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
after a considerable interval and the independent circumstances connecting it
with the accident remain doubtful.
17. The primary evidence relied upon to establish the identity of the
offending vehicle is that of PW-2 Satpal Singh. According to his testimony, he
was travelling on his motorcycle when he witnessed a Mahindra Bolero vehicle
strike the motorcycle of the deceased. He claimed that the vehicle stopped at
the spot, that he noted its registration number and that he subsequently
informed the police.
18. The statement of this witness, however, is highly doubtful. The
material on record shows that his statement identifying the vehicle was
recorded on 10.08.2018, whereas the accident occurred on 25.05.2018. Thus,
the specific identification of the insured vehicle emerged after approximately
two and a half months. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he had
informed the police after three or four days of the accident, whereas he also
referred to his statement having been recorded after about one month. These
assertions are difficult to reconcile with the date of his recorded statement.
19. More importantly, PW-2 admitted that he had remained at the
spot for approximately five to seven minutes and that the police had not
arrived during his presence. He also stated that the vehicle involved in the
accident had stopped at the spot and that he had noted its registration
number. If the witness had actually noticed and recorded the complete
registration number of the vehicle, his failure to furnish that information
promptly to the police, and the absence of any contemporaneous record
establishing such disclosure, required a satisfactory explanation.
20. The supplementary statement of PW-2 dated 10.08.2018 also
contains an assertion that, to avoid harassment in connection with the court
case, he had not initially disclosed the registration number to the police. This
explanation, when considered alongside his subsequent claim of having
informed the police within a few days, introduces a material inconsistency
regarding the manner and timing of disclosure of the most important fact,
YOGESH MEHTA namely, the identity of the offending vehicle.
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
21. The delay in examining an eyewitness is not invariably fatal to a
claim. Nevertheless, where the FIR concerns an unidentified vehicle, the police
investigation has failed to trace it, and a witness subsequently identifies a
specific insured vehicle after a substantial interval, the credibility of that
identification must be tested against the surrounding circumstances. Such
evidence cannot be accepted merely because the witness has described
himself as an eyewitness.
22. The testimony of PW-4 ASI Manohar Lal assumes considerable
importance. He admitted that FIR No.82 dated 25.05.2018 was registered
against an unidentified vehicle and that, after investigation, an untraced
report, Ex.RX, had been prepared because the vehicle involved in the accident
could not be traced. He further admitted that he could not state whether the
vehicle subsequently implicated in the claim petition was actually involved in
the accident.
23. The Tribunal discarded the significance of the untraced report
primarily on the ground that it had neither been presented before the
jurisdictional Magistrate nor accepted by a competent Court. While an
untraced report is not conclusive proof that the insured vehicle was
uninvolved, it remains a relevant circumstance. Its evidentiary value cannot be
completely ignored merely because the report had not attained finality before
the criminal court. The report was material to the question whether the
investigating agency had found any reliable evidence identifying the vehicle
responsible for the accident.
24. The claimants also relied upon the testimony of PW-3 Gaurav
Mishra, Manager, IT, Cholangh Toll Plaza, who proved the record showing that
vehicle No.JK-08-E-1757 passed through the toll plaza on 25.05.2018 at
5:24:07 PM.
25. The said evidence, at its highest, establishes the presence of the
vehicle at the toll plaza at the recorded time. It does not, by itself, establish
that the vehicle struck the motorcycle of Raghubir Singh. No material has been
YOGESH MEHTA identified establishing physical contact between the two vehicles, damage to
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
the insured vehicle corresponding to the alleged collision, or any other
independent circumstance directly connecting the vehicle with the occurrence.
The toll record could corroborate an otherwise reliable identification, but
cannot independently supply the missing link.
26. Another material aspect is the approach adopted by the Tribunal
regarding the non-appearance of the driver and owner. The Tribunal observed
that, since they had not appeared to contest the proceedings, the accident
involving their vehicle stood admitted. This reasoning cannot be sustained in
its absolute form. The non-appearance of a party may, in an appropriate case,
justify an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. However, an adverse inference cannot substitute the
foundational evidence necessary to establish the involvement of the vehicle.
27. The insurer had specifically disputed the involvement of the
insured vehicle. Consequently, the failure of the driver and owner to contest
the proceedings could not be treated as a binding admission against the
insurer. Indeed, where false implication of an insured vehicle is alleged, the
absence of a contest by its driver or owner may itself require scrutiny rather
than being treated as conclusive corroboration of the claim.
28. The Tribunal also proceeded on the premise that registration of
the FIR was sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. The said reasoning overlooks the fact that the FIR in the
present case was registered against an unidentified driver and an unidentified
vehicle. An FIR concerning an unknown vehicle cannot, without further reliable
evidence, establish the involvement or negligence of the driver of a
subsequently named vehicle.
29. The authorities relied upon by the Tribunal regarding omission of
the registration number from the FIR are distinguishable on their factual
foundation. Omission of the registration number in the FIR is not, by itself,
fatal where the involvement of the vehicle is otherwise established by
trustworthy evidence. However, in the present case, the difficulty is not
YOGESH MEHTA confined to the absence of the registration number in the FIR. It is the
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 7 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
cumulative effect of the initial description of an unidentified car, the delayed
introduction of the insured vehicle, the inconsistent account of the alleged
eyewitness regarding disclosure of its number, the untraced police
investigation and the absence of independent evidence directly connecting the
insured vehicle with the accident.
30. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the appellant–
Insurance Company did not examine any witness in defence before the
Tribunal. Its evidence was closed on 06.05.2025. This circumstance cannot be
overlooked. However, the insurer is entitled to rely upon admissions elicited
during cross-examination of the claimants' witnesses and upon documents
proved through those witnesses. The absence of independent defence
evidence does not automatically establish a fact, which the claimants were
required to prove.
31. The appellant has alleged that the claim petition was fabricated in
collusion with the driver, owner and other persons. In United India Insurance
Company Limited v. Rajendra Singh and others , (2000) 3 SCC 581 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court recognized that fraudulent claims cannot be permitted to
succeed merely because they arise under beneficial legislation. Fraud, when
established, vitiates judicial proceedings. However, an allegation of fraud must
rest upon cogent material; as the suspicion, however strong, cannot by itself
justify a categorical finding that the claimants committed fraud.
32. In the present case, the circumstances discussed above
undoubtedly create serious doubt regarding the involvement of vehicle No.JK-
08-E-1757. Nevertheless, a distinction must be maintained between a finding
that the claimants have failed to establish involvement of the insured vehicle
and an affirmative finding that they deliberately fabricated evidence or acted
in collusion with the driver, owner or police officials. The latter finding would
require a firmer evidentiary foundation.
33. The Tribunal appears to have treated the discrepancies as
inconsequential mainly because the standard of proof in motor accident claims
YOGESH MEHTA is one of preponderance of probabilities. This approach is legally
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 8 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
unsustainable. The standard of preponderance of probabilities requires the
Court to assess which version is more probable upon consideration of the
entire evidence. It does not require the Court to overlook material
contradictions or accept a doubtful identification merely because the claim
arises from a fatal accident.
34. Upon cumulative consideration of the evidence, this Court finds
that the claimants have failed to establish, even on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities, that the accident dated 25.05.2018 was
caused by Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.JK-08-E-1757. The
delayed identification of the vehicle by PW-2, viewed alongside the
inconsistencies in his account and the result of the police investigation, does
not inspire sufficient confidence. The toll plaza record does not cure this
deficiency. Nor can the non-appearance of the driver and owner be treated as
conclusive proof of the involvement of the insured vehicle.
35. Accordingly, the finding returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 is
not sustainable and is liable to be reversed. Once the involvement of the
insured vehicle itself has not been established, the question of fastening
liability upon its insurer does not arise.
36. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, it is unnecessary to examine
in detail the appellant's alternative challenge to the quantum of compensation
or the rate of interest. These questions would arise only upon establishment of
liability.
37. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed . The award dated
13.11.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, in
MACP No.25 of 2019, is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed.
38. It is clarified that any amount deposited by the appellant–
Insurance Company pursuant to the impugned award or orders passed in the
present appeal, which has not been disbursed, shall be refunded to it along
with accrued interest, if any, in accordance with law. Any amount already
disbursed shall be subject to appropriate orders upon consideration of the
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 9 of Total 10 Pages

FAO-2480-2026 (O&M)
relevant circumstances and applicable law. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

12.11.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Yogesh
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No


Uploaded on: 12.11.2026
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.12 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 10 of Total 10 Pages