IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2610 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt.Krishna Devi and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award, whereby the respondent-claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- as compensation in respect of death of one Manjeet, in a motor vehicle accident which was caused by respondent No.3, who was driving the offending vehicle owned by respondent No.4. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Company at the time of accident. Counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned award submitting that the offending vehicle was falsely involved to claim compensation and in fact, no accident has taken place with the aforesaid vehicle. To support his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a fact that initially father of the deceased had lodged an FIR naming another vehicle whereas names of respondents No.3 and 4 and the offending vehicle were mentioned in the FIR later on. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit. It is not in dispute that FIR No.30 was registered on 15.3.2010 i.e. the day on which the accident occurred. Simply because the vehicle number given in the aforesaid FIR was HR18-A/5987 and the FAO No.2610 of 2011(O&M) -2- number of the offending vehicle i.e. HR18-A/6219 was entered later on, will not suffice to hold that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is settled law that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is the admissible evidence adduced by the parties which is to be taken into consideration. There is nothing on record to support the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Moreover, a perusal of the award would show that the appellant-Company had taken all possible grounds to contest the claim application and on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, issues were framed and no issue regarding false involvement of vehicle was claimed by the appellant-Company. It is not the case of the appellant that it has come to know about this fact of introduction of the offending vehicle in the FIR at a later stage i.e. after filing of the written statement. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. April 26, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE