JUDGMENT : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. A claim petition was filed by the first respondent contending that when he was coming from Azad Nagar bus stand towards his house, the rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264 hit him from behind. As a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries. He claimed that he had spent Rs. 80,000/- towards medical expenses and that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and due to the accident he became permanently disabled and lost his future income. He sought for a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. 2. The first respondent filed objections denying the petition averments in general. The first respondent also denied that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/A-8264 had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner. 3. It was however admitted by the first respondent that the accident had occurred and that the petitioner had sustained injuries. The first respondent also denied the averments made by the claimant regarding the sums that he was entitled to as compensation. It is stated that as his vehicle was duly insured with the second respondent and if the Court come to the conclusion that he was liable to pay the compensation, that liability must be fastened on the insurance company. 4. The second respondent entered appearance and contested the matter. As usual, the insurance company denied the entire petition averments. The insurance company denied the averment that the rider of the motorcycle had driven the motorcycle in a high speed and negligent manner and the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. An assertion was also made that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. It may be pertinent to state here that no further pleas regarding the accident being caused by any other vehicle was taken up by the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal framed three issues. The first issue was whether the petitioner proves that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264? 7. 5. It may be pertinent to state here that no further pleas regarding the accident being caused by any other vehicle was taken up by the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal framed three issues. The first issue was whether the petitioner proves that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264? 7. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the oral evidence as well as contents of FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, charge-sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264 and the order sheet in C.C. No. 734/2004 the claimant had proved that the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264 had caused the accident. The order sheet in C.C. No. 734/2004 also indicated that the rider of the motorcycle had pleaded guilty and this was another fact to come to the conclusion that the said motorcycle had caused the accident. 8. The Tribunal also took the view from the contents of Ex.P-7, wound certificate and it was clear that the claimant sustained a fracture of the left femur and there was deformity of the left leg and other injuries on left elbow etc. and these materials were sufficient to prove that the accident had occurred on 10.07.2004 due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264. 9. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,31,300/- along with interest at 6% p.a. 10. The insurance company is in appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal principally on the ground that the police records produced by the claimant himself indicated that the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-6542 was involved in the accident and motor Vehicle No. KA-23/R-8264 was not at all involved in the accident. It was contended that since the police documents prove that some other vehicle had caused the accident and the insurance company could not be made liable. He also contended that the FIR and the charge-sheet by themselves state that the vehicle involved in the accident was KA-23/R-6542 and not KA-23/R-8264 and the Tribunal has committed a serious error in relying upon the said records to come to the conclusion that the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/R-8264 was involved in the accident. 11. He also contended that the FIR and the charge-sheet by themselves state that the vehicle involved in the accident was KA-23/R-6542 and not KA-23/R-8264 and the Tribunal has committed a serious error in relying upon the said records to come to the conclusion that the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/R-8264 was involved in the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order contending that no infirmity could be found with the award of the Tribunal and the same requires to be confirmed. 12. I have considered the contentions advanced by both the parties and I am of the view that the award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 13. The clear plea put forth in the claim petition was that the rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264 had hit the claimant from behind. This contention was denied by the insurance company. The insurance company made a statement that the said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The insurance company for some reason did not take up the plea that as a matter of fact, from the police records, it was clear that Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-6542 was the vehicle involved in the accident. 14. In my view, if the insurance company was to contend that some other vehicle as indicated in the FIR had been involved in the accident, it ought to have led evidence to prove this assertion. The insurance company cannot make a general denial of the claim petition and attempt to take advantage of the contents of the FIR, charge-sheet and expect that the Tribunal to come to a finding on that basis that vehicle mentioned in the claim petition was not involved. 15. It is settled law that in the motor vehicle accident claims cases, the principal requirement to be proved is that of the actual occurrence of the accident and thereafter the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the just compensation. It is also settled law that the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties and the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases. 16. It is also settled law that the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties and the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases. 16. In law, a FIR is only a record of the information received and recorded by the Station House Officer. A charge-sheet is a statement of charge made against the accused on complaint of the investigation. These assertions in the FIR and in the charge-sheet are to be independently proved before the criminal Court in order to return a verdict of guilt against the persons accused of the crime. 17. In my view, a FIR or a charge-sheet produced before the Tribunal cannot be taken as conclusive proof of its contents in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act. 18. In a case, where the insurance company were to put forth the plea that the vehicle mentioned in the claim petition had not been involved in the accident and some other vehicle was involved, it is for the insurance company to plead and prove the said assertion. In the instant case, admittedly, no evidence, either oral or documentary, has been adduced by the insurance company. As stated above, no plea of substitution of vehicle or fraud has been set up. 19. The insurance company is engaged in defending claims day in and day out and unless the insurance company sets up a proper defence and establishes that defence, the Tribunal will be unable to accept the assertion of the insurance company. 20. In the instant case, the Tribunal has relied upon the Motor Vehicle Accidents Report and the police records to come to the conclusion that an accident had occurred in which the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-23-/R-8264 had been involved. It may be pertinent to state here that the claimant also produced Motor Vehicle Accidents Report at Ex.P-6. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Report prepared by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, R.T.O. Belagavi, states that he had received a requisition from the Police Sub-Inspector of Traffic Police North, Belagavi on 04.08.2004 to inspect the vehicle involved in the accident on 10.07.2004. The said report indicates that the crime number and date was not mentioned in the police requisition. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Report prepared by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, R.T.O. Belagavi, states that he had received a requisition from the Police Sub-Inspector of Traffic Police North, Belagavi on 04.08.2004 to inspect the vehicle involved in the accident on 10.07.2004. The said report indicates that the crime number and date was not mentioned in the police requisition. The report, in relation to particulars of vehicles, clearly states that vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264, a Hero Honda motorcycle with gear had been inspected by the inspector. In my view, since the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the said motor vehicle on the requisition of the police themselves, the Tribunal would be justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to the involvement of the said motor vehicle. 21. In my view, the Tribunal has acted upon the preponderance of probabilities principle and come to the conclusion that the motorcycle as stated in the claim petition was involved. 22. I am therefore of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-23/R-8264 was involved in the accident does not suffer from any infirmity. 23. Learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Premalatha Shukla and Others, (2007) 3 ACC 54 (SC) and the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devendrappa S/o Siddappa Ganadal (M.F.A. No. 20331/2012) disposed of on 30.05.2017. 24. In my view, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the case of Premalatha Shukla, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the FIR. It has held that once all the part of the contents of the documents had been admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record could not be permitted to turn around and contend that other contents contained in the document can be ignored. In the instant case, it is not the case of the claimant that a part of the FIR be accepted and another part be ignored. 25. In the instant case, it is not the case of the claimant that a part of the FIR be accepted and another part be ignored. 25. It is to be noted here that the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules mandates that every person making an application for compensation is required to append the medical report or the postmortem report and a FIR along with the application. (See Rule 32(3) of the K.M.V. Rules, 1989). 26. Thus, merely because a FIR or a charge-sheet is produced because of the requirement of a rule, that does not mean that the claimant has admitted the contents of the FIR or has relied upon the FIR prove the factum of the accident. A claimant can establish an accident by placing reliance on the documents other than the FIR and charge-sheet such as medical certificate, oral evidence etc. 27. Merely because a FIR is produced by the claimant, the insurance company cannot make use of contents in the FIR to contend that the accident had not occurred in the manner stated in the claim petition, more so without setting up a definite plea in its defence. 28. A three Judges’ Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Punam Devi and Another vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 386 has held as under: “In the present case, the insurer has not led any evidence that the driver of the vehicle had no license. The burden of proof that the driver had no licence was open the insurer which it failed to discharge.” 29. Thus, the Apex Court has clearly laid down the principle that if an insurance company puts forth a plea, the burden of proving that plea lies on the insurance company and if it fails to discharge the same, it should suffer the consequences. 30. In the instant case, the insurance company did not put forth any plea and it did not lead any evidence to establish the involvement of some other vehicle. Thus, the insurance company has failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the involvement of some other vehicle. 31. In my view, the reliance placed by the insurance company on the FIR and charge-sheet in order to establish that the vehicle was not involved, cannot be accepted. 32. Thus, the insurance company has failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the involvement of some other vehicle. 31. In my view, the reliance placed by the insurance company on the FIR and charge-sheet in order to establish that the vehicle was not involved, cannot be accepted. 32. In view of the above, I find there is no ground to entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed. 33. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award.