As per case facts, petitioners, being the widow and sons of Baldev Singh, filed a claim for compensation following his death in a motor accident. The accident allegedly involved a ... Tata Sumo vehicle, HP17A-6406, driven rashly and negligently. The petitioners sought compensation, but the appellant, an insurance company, disputed the involvement of HP17A-6406, contending that another vehicle, UA07B-7120, was involved, citing police investigation reports. The appellant also argued that the awarded compensation was excessive. The question arose whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) correctly identified the offending vehicle and, consequently, whether the liability was rightly fastened upon the insurer of vehicle HP17A-6406, especially when there were conflicting accounts from eyewitnesses and police reports regarding the vehicle's identity. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the MACT's award. The court reasoned that the MACT rightly relied on the categorical statement of an eyewitness, who deposed on oath about the involvement of HP17A-6406 and was subjected to cross-examination. The court found that the police investigation report, which suggested the involvement of a different vehicle, was inconsequential in the face of direct eyewitness testimony, particularly since the investigating officer was not summoned to clarify the findings. The court also observed that the appellant insurance company failed to challenge the eyewitness's statement regarding the specific vehicle's involvement during cross-examination, thereby implicitly admitting it. Thus, the involvement of HP17A-6406 was proven on a preponderance of probabilities, and there was no ground to interfere with the MACT's findings or the compensation awarded.