Omission of eyewitness from police investigation does not invalidate testimony proved on preponderance of probabilities.

The claimants, respondents 1 and 2, filed for compensation following a fatal motor accident on April 19, 2013, involving a TVS Scooty and an offending vehicle (Registration No. TN-47-X-4973).

While the initial FIR did not identify the offending vehicle, subsequent investigation led to a final report against the driver, Prabhakaran.

The Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim, asserting the vehicle was not involved and citing a criminal court judgment where the accused was acquitted.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 48,94,094/- with 7.5% interest, applying the "pay and recover" principle because the driver lacked a valid license.

The insurer appealed, primarily questioning the vehicle's involvement based on the non-examination of an eyewitness (PW2) by the police and the owner's testimony in criminal court claiming he was the driver.

Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident warrants interference in light of the acquittal in the connected criminal case.

The court applied the principle that proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are summary in nature and governed by the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

The non-examination of a witness by an Investigation Officer does not render their testimony before a Tribunal unreliable, as established in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.

The absence of a vehicle number in an FIR is not fatal to a claim if involvement is otherwise established, as held in Janabai v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. and Kusum Lata v. Satbir.

The Court noted that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is lower than in criminal trials, meaning an acquittal does not automatically preclude civil liability.

Upon reviewing the criminal case records, the Court found that the owner of the vehicle never disputed the vehicle's involvement; he only disputed the identity of the driver to potentially avoid the consequences of employing an unlicensed driver.

The Court found the testimony of the eyewitness (PW2) to be consistent and natural, ruling that his absence from police records was a mere investigative omission that did not discredit his courtroom testimony.

The Court concluded that the claimants successfully established the vehicle's involvement based on the final report and corroborated oral evidence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award. The Appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire award amount within six weeks, with the liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner as per the Tribunal's "pay and recover" direction.