As per case facts, Ikhbal died in a motor accident while overtaking a bus when he was hit by a car. His family, the appellants, sought compensation, but the Motor ... Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and High Court dismissed their claim, finding no proof of the car's involvement or negligent driving. The appellants appealed, arguing that there was sufficient evidence demonstrating the car's involvement and that the lower courts' findings were perverse due to misreading of evidence. The question arose whether the subject car was involved in the accident, and if the lower courts' findings of non-involvement were perverse, given the evidence presented. Finally, the Supreme Court, applying principles of preponderance of probability, found the car was indeed involved, citing damages to the car and consistent eyewitness testimony. The Court ruled that disbelieving a trustworthy witness merely because they were not examined during police investigation was incorrect and that the evidence, including the Mahazar report, strongly indicated the car's involvement. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and awarded compensation with interest to the appellants.