Evidence recorded before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal prevails over contrary contents of First Information Report.

Two claimants, Pritam Singh and Romesh Chander, alleged they were walking near Khandli Bridge, Rajouri, on 19.03.2012 when a Tractor (JK11/0709) hit them from behind due to the driver’s negligence, resulting in permanent disabilities

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajouri, awarded compensation of ₹3,23,000 and ₹2,16,000 respectively, holding the appellant-insurer liable

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the claimants were actually "gratuitous passengers" on the tractor—which has a seating capacity only for the driver—and thus excluded from policy coverage

The appellant relied on an investigator's report and the fact that the FIR mentioned "people travelling by vehicle" were injured

Whether the claimants were hit as pedestrians (third parties) or were travelling as gratuitous passengers on the tractor at the time of the accident, thereby affecting the insurer's liability

Whether the evidence recorded before the Tribunal should prevail over the contents of the FIR and Charge-sheet

The Court applied the principle that an insurer is not liable for injuries to gratuitous passengers in a vehicle not insured for such carriage, as held in *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani*

However, citing *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari* (2021), the Court established that if ocular evidence before the Tribunal contradicts the FIR, the Tribunal's evidence takes precedence

It further applied the "preponderance of probabilities" standard for proving negligence in torts, distinct from the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law, as per *Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi* (2023)

Additionally, the "pay and recover" principle from *Akula Narayana v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2025) was noted regarding breaches of policy conditions

The Court examined the discrepancies between the police records and the oral testimony.

While the appellant argued the FIR implied the claimants were "travelling by vehicle," the Court noted that the FIR and Charge-sheet failed to specifically name the claimants as passengers

Conversely, the claimants and eye-witnesses provided consistent testimony that they were walking on foot and hit from behind

The Investigating Officer (IO) admitted in cross-examination that he collected no evidence to prove the claimants were *not* walking on foot

Applying *Chamundeswari*, the Court gave greater weight to the testimonies recorded during the inquiry than the vague wording of the FIR

Consequently, the Court found the appellant failed to substance the defense that the claimants were gratuitous passengers

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Insurer is contractually liable to satisfy the awards for the insured's tortious liability

Both appeals were dismissed, and the deposited compensation was ordered to be released to the claimants