P. N. Khanna ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of six appeals, F. A. O. 23-D of 1965 to FA. O. 28-D of 1965, filed under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act No. 4 of 1939. The circumstances under which the proceedings, out of which these appeals have arisen, were initiated, are as follows :- ( 2 ) ON the night between June 8 and 9, 1961 at about 12. 45 a m a truck drove at a great speed from the side of Shakti Nagar and ran over the raised round-about (gole chakar) near Ram Rup Vidya Mandir. A number of persons were sleeping at that lime on the said round about. The truck struck several persons, resulting in the death of three of them, viz. Tej Ram, a boy of 16 years, Pushpa Devi, aged about 12 years and Kishan Lal aged 32 years ; and injuries to three other persons, viz. Hari Ram, Budhi Ram and Krishan Prashad It was a dark night. But one Faquir Chand, it is aid, holding a gas lantern was passing that say. It was in that gas light that it was noticed, it is alleged, that the truck bore legistration No D. L. G. 638. Pritam Singh said to have been the driver of the truck. The accident was said to have been caused due to the negligent and rash driving by Pritam Singh. The truck, was said to be owned by Inder Singh. The legal representatives of the three deceased persons and the three injured persons filed six separate petitions under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed for damages in their respective petitions. ( 3 ) TO begin with, the petitions were filed against Inder Singh, as the owner of the truck and Pritam Singh, the driver. Subsequently, however, Victory Transport Co. P. Ltd. , Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as respondents. It was stated that Victory Transport Co. P. Ltd. was probably the owner of the truck and Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. , was the insurer with whom the said truck was insured. The Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. was also stated to be another insurer with whom the said truck was insured. In F. A. O. 23-D of 1965, Nanumal and his wife Anandi, claimed Rs. 20,000. P. Ltd. was probably the owner of the truck and Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. , was the insurer with whom the said truck was insured. The Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. was also stated to be another insurer with whom the said truck was insured. In F. A. O. 23-D of 1965, Nanumal and his wife Anandi, claimed Rs. 20,000. 00as damages on account of the death of their daughter Pushpa. In F. A. O, 25-D of 1965, Mrs. Bhagwati Devi claimed Rs. 30. 000. 00 on account of damages for the death of her father. Kishan Lal. In F. A. O 26-D of 1965, Behari Lal and his wife Har Piari, claimed Rs. 30,000. 00 on account of the death of their son Tej Ram aged about 16 years. In F A. O. 24-D of 1965 Hari Ram had claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 on account of injuries suffered by him. In F. A. O. 27-D of 1965 Bhudhi Ram claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 on account of injuries. In F. A. O. 28-D of 1965 Kishan Prashad claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 likewise for the injuries suffered by him. As all the six applications had arisen out of the same accident, they were consolidated and were disposed of by the common order of the Motor accidents claims Tribunal. ( 4 ) THE petitions were contested by Victory Transport Co. P. Ltd. , as well as by, Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. Inder Singh and Pritam Singh did not appear and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. Subsequently, the ex parte order against Inder Singh was set aside on his application. But after filing written statement he again absented himself. In the written statement he denied the allegations in the petitions and stated that he was not the owner of the truck. The Victory Transport Company Private Limited denied any connection with the offending truck and stated that Pritam Singh was never in its employment. The Vanguard Insurance Company Limited disputed its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle belonged to Inder Singh and was never insured with it. The Victory Transport Company Private Limited, who took out the insurance to begin with had transferred the vehicle to Inder Singh. This resulted in its insurance cover coming to an end. For this reason the insurance company denied its liability. The Victory Transport Company Private Limited, who took out the insurance to begin with had transferred the vehicle to Inder Singh. This resulted in its insurance cover coming to an end. For this reason the insurance company denied its liability. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was not being plied under the direction or control of Victory Transport Company Private Limited. Various issues were framed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said truck was not proved to have been involved in the accident. All the six petitioners were, therefore, dismissed ; although other issues were also discussed. ( 5 ) THE only issues that were argued in this court were as follows : - " (1) Whether the truck No. DLG 638 was owned by Inder Singh or Victory Transport Co. at the time of the alleged accident ? (2) Whether the truck in question was involved in the alleged accident ?" ( 6 ) THE evidence on record establishes that although truck No. DLG 638 was registered in the name of Victory Transport Company Private Limited, it had sold it to Inder Singh, on a dale prior to the date of the accident. R. W. 5, K. L. Sachdeva, clerk State Transport Authority, has stated on oath, after looking into the file of permit No. 3 under which truck No. DLG 638 was being run that an application was made jointly by the transferor and the transferee for transfer of permit No. 3 in the name of Inder Singh on December 29, 1960. RW6, Gian Chand, clerk of Transporters Gazette, stated on oath that they had published a notice in their gazette dated February 3, 1961, being exhibit RW6/1, about the said transfer from Victory Transport Company Private Limited to Inder Singh, RW7, N. C. Garg, clerk, Motor Registration Office, Delhi, stated that the Victory Transport Company Private Limited and Inder Singh had applied for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle on July 4, 1961, implying thereby that the transfer must have taken place earlier. AW9, Parmeshwar Dayal, clerk. Registration Authority, Delhi, stated that the registration of the truck was transferred on July 4, 1961, on an application dated July 1, 1961. AW9, Parmeshwar Dayal, clerk. Registration Authority, Delhi, stated that the registration of the truck was transferred on July 4, 1961, on an application dated July 1, 1961. This evidence clearly establishes that the vehicle in question had been transferred from Victory Transport Company Private Limited, to Inder Singh on a date prior to the date of the accident, which took place on June 9, 1961. In the circumstances, Victory Transport Company Private Limited was not the owner of the vehicle No. DLG 638. As a result of the above finding, the Vanguard Insurance Company Limited also cannot be held responsible, because their liability under the insurance policy came to an endon the transfer of the above vehicle. ( 7 ) THE main question involved, however, is whether truck No. DLG 638 was involved in the alleged accident. The learned counsel for the appellant relied for this purpose on exhibit AW 1/1, the First information Report, lodged by one Faqir Chand son of Ramlal. This report was produced in court by AW1, Bhim Sen, head constable, Police Station, Subzimandi. The number of the offending truck has been mentioned in this report as DLG 638. It has been stated therein that Faqir Chand, informant, was going to his house after closing his shop and was carrying a gas lantern with him, when he saw the offending truck driven rashly and negligently at a great speed causing the said accident. The oral evidence consisted of the statements of two eye witnesses, AW2 Mohan Singh and AW5, Mahabir Parshad. Both have stated that the accident took place on the night between June 8 and 9, 1961, when truck No. DLG 638 coming from Shakti Nagar side at a fast speed ran over the raised round-about and crushed some of the persons who were sleeping there. The number of the truck was said to have been seen in the light from the gas lantern, although the night was dark. The name of the driver was ascertained as Pritam Singh, who is said to have stopped for a brief interval but then run away. No other witness came forward to support this story. Even Faqir Chand. who lodged the First Information Report with the police was not examined. ( 8 ) AW2, Mohan Singh in cross-examination stated that it was Faqir Chand who had seen the number of the truck. No other witness came forward to support this story. Even Faqir Chand. who lodged the First Information Report with the police was not examined. ( 8 ) AW2, Mohan Singh in cross-examination stated that it was Faqir Chand who had seen the number of the truck. AW5, Mahabir Parshad likewise stated in cross- examination that he could not himself see the number of the truck in the darkness of the night. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first information report was enough to substantiate the version put forward on behalf of the appellants. According to him, the First Information Report proves that an accident did take place in which truck No. DLG 638 was involved. The number of the truck was given immediately after the accident as DLG 638 as appears from the said First Information Report. But Faqir Chand, the informant, not having been examined, the First Information Report by itself has no value ; and cannot be used for any purpose. In State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry and another, it was observed by the Supreme Court : "it is well settled that the First Information Report is not substantive evidence, but can only be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the informant given in court or to impeach his credit. It follows that a judge cannot place such a report before the jury as substantive evidence, but can only refer to that portion of it which bad been used for one or other of the aforesaid purposes". The object of the First Information Report is to obtain early information of any alleged criminal activity and to set the investigation in motion. The report can be put in evidence when the informant comes in the witness box to corroborate or to contradict him. It cannot be used for any other purposes. In the present case Faqir Chand, who is said to have lodged the First Information Report was not examined in court, the respondents had no opportunity to test the veracity of his statement by cross- examining him. Under the circumstances the learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal when it held that truck No. DLG 638, was not proved to be involved in-the accident from the evidence on record. Under the circumstances the learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal when it held that truck No. DLG 638, was not proved to be involved in-the accident from the evidence on record. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, there is no merit in any of these six appeals and all of them are dismissed. But under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.