Judgment :- 1. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of a common judgment of the Tribunal in different claim petitions involving the same accident. 2. The claimants are the appellants herein. The injured and the deceased were working as loadmen under the owner of the lorry, Kandasamy, who is the first respondent herein. 3. On 20.8.85 at about 6.15 A.M., the said lorry was proceeding from Kodaikanal to Madurai through Vathalakundu main road. While nearing the town in the main road, the driver of the vehicle was driving the lorry with a great speed in a rash and negligent manner. All of a sudden, the driver lost control of the lorry. In the result, lorry came to the extreme left of the road to the mud portion and capsized. Due to the impact of the accident, the injured and the deceased sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the claimants filed separate claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos. 7/86, 8/86, 9/96, 10/86 and 2/87. 4. The Tribunal, after enquiry, concluded that the driver of the lorry was negligent and the claimants/the injured and the L.Rs. of the deceased would be entitled to the compensation of various amounts. The Tribunal further directed that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amounts in view of the fact that the injured and the deceased were the unauthorised passengers and consequently, the policy would not cover those cases and the owner of the lorry alone would be liable to pay the various amounts of compensation to the respective claimants. This common judgment of the Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in these appeals. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would mainly contend that the Tribunal wrongly held that the deceased and the injured persons were passengers and that therefore, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation, even though the same was not established by the Insurance Company. 6. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the materials available on record would prove that the injured and the deceased were working as loadmen employed by the lorry owner and as such, the policy, Ex.B-2 would cover those cases and consequently, the Insurance Company alone would be liable to pay the amount. 7. 6. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the materials available on record would prove that the injured and the deceased were working as loadmen employed by the lorry owner and as such, the policy, Ex.B-2 would cover those cases and consequently, the Insurance Company alone would be liable to pay the amount. 7. This submission is resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, the second respondent herein. 8. Though notice was served on the Owner of the lorry, the first respondent herein, nobody entered appearance. 9. On going through the records and the judgment impugned, I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal, that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation, is quite erroneous for the following reasons. 10. All the claimants in the claim petitions, would state that the deceased and the injured were working as loadmen in the lorry*. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants also would state in the deposition that they were working as loadmen in the lorry involved in the accident. The owner of the lorry, who was a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, the first respondent herein, also would admit in his counter statement that they were employed by him to work as loadmen in the lorry belonging to him. 11. Even during the course of cross-examination of all these witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants in all these claim petitions, it is suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the lorry that they were not permanent loadmen, but they were temporary loadmen. 12. It is true that in the counter filed by the Insurance Company and in the Cross examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company; the stand taken by the Insurance Company is that the policy would not cover the present cases where the passengers travelling in the lorry met with the accident. Ex.B-2 the policy marked through R.W.I examined on behalf of the Insurance Company would clearly reveal that the policy would cover for the driver, the cleaner and the loadmen. 13. Under these circumstances, we have to decide whether the deceased and injured, for whom the claim petitions were filed, were actually working as loadmen in the lorry or not? 14. Ex.B-2 the policy marked through R.W.I examined on behalf of the Insurance Company would clearly reveal that the policy would cover for the driver, the cleaner and the loadmen. 13. Under these circumstances, we have to decide whether the deceased and injured, for whom the claim petitions were filed, were actually working as loadmen in the lorry or not? 14. Admittedly, the F.I.R. was registered by the police on the complaint given by the driver of the lorry. His name was mentioned as accused in the said F.I.R. A perusal of the F.I.R. would show that his name was mentioned in columns meant of first informant as well as the accused. The F.I.R. was not marked either through the author of the F.I.R., viz. the driver of the lorry or through any Police Officer, who registered the F.I.R. But, in the accident cases, the strict applicability with regard to the admissibility of these documents under the Evidence Act is not necessary, as pointed out by this Court and the Apex Court. 15. Though it was objected to when the F.I.R. was marked as Ex.B-1 through R.W.I, an officer of the Insurance Company, there is no difficulty in holding that the contents of the F.I.R. can be taken into consideration. However, how far the Court could act upon the contents of the same would depend upon the other materials available on record. 16. In this context, it shall be pointed out that the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was negligent, though it is argued on behalf of the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company that the driver was not negligent on the reason that in the F.I.R., he had stated that he was not negligent. The said argument was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the author of the F.I.R., the driver of the lorry, was not examined. 17. Having held so, it is ununderstandable as to how the Tribunal has relied upon this document Ex.B-1, to come to the conclusion that the injured and the deceased were not loadmen. Anyhow, as I pointed out earlier, there is no embargo for considering the contents of the F.I.R. in order to find out the truth in the light of the other materials available on record. 18. Anyhow, as I pointed out earlier, there is no embargo for considering the contents of the F.I.R. in order to find out the truth in the light of the other materials available on record. 18. As indicated above, the case of the claimants as well as the owner of the vehicle, is that the deceased and injured were working as loadmen in the lorry involved in the accident. The only document on which the Insurance Company heavily relies upon is Ex.B-1, the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., it is stated by the driver of the lorry that he was not negligent and that some of the persons travelling in the lorry were loadmen and some of the persons were owners of the goods (Tamil) 19. As indicated above, the Tribunal rejected the contents of the F.I.R. stating that the driver was not negligent and held that the driver of the lorry alone was negligent. Therefore, the Tribunal, having rejected the contents of the F.I.R., ought to have rejected the contents of the F.I.R. in toto or else the Insurance Company must have produced further records like charge-sheet and other documents to show that during the course of investigation, they were found to be only passengers and not loadmen. 20. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal, mainly on the basis of one of the portions of the F.I.R. Ex.B-1 that the deceased and the injured were not loadmen, even though it disbelieved the other main portion of the F.I.R., in spite of the fact that there are materials available in the form of claim petitions and the deposition of the injured witnesses and the counter of the owner of the lorry to show that they were loadmen at the relevant time, is quite erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 21. However, at the end, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, would point out the contents of the policy and submit that even assuming that the injured and the deceased were loadmen, the policy would cover in respect of three loadmen only and that therefore, it cannot be contended that the claimants in all the petitions would be entitled to the compensation. This argument also, in my view, cannot be held to be sound. 22. This argument also, in my view, cannot be held to be sound. 22. As I already indicated, there is no material adduced by the Insurance Company to show that these deceased and injured are not loadmen. Even if we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Policy would cover only three loadmen, it is not clear which of the three persons among the injured and the deceased, would be eligible for the claim. 23. Further, there is no evidence to show that the other persons were allowed to be in the vehicle with the knowledge of the owner so as to make the plea that there was wilful breach of the conditions of the policy. In this connection the judgment of this Court in Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Murugesh & others (1998-1-L.W. 59) following the Supreme Court judgment in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (1996) 4 S.C.C. 647 ) is quire relevant. The relevant observation is as follows:— “If we approach the question in this background, it cannot be said that there was any wilful breach of any of the conditions of the policy. While disowning the liability a duty is also cast on the Insurance Company to show that it is because of the presence of the additional persons who were allowed to be in the lorry, the accident happened. Absolutely no evidence was adduced in that regard”. In a very recent decision of the Supreme Court, again in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), a similar point arose for consideration. There also, six workmen were allowed to be in the lorry. But it seems, the driver permitted few more persons to be in the lorry at the time of the accident. Insurance Company disclosed their responsibility. While considering the same, their Lordships said thus:— “It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver, if those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. In the present case the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, it cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing the accident. The Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to show that it was with the knowledge of the owner, more persons were allowed to be in the vehicle, and it was because of the presence of those persons, the accident happened. In that case also, their Lordships followed the decisions reported in (1987) 2 S.C.C. 654 ( Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others). Therefore, the second ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant also has to be rejected”. 24. Under the circumstances, the Insurance Company alone is held liable for the payment of compensation awarded to the respective claimants. 25. Hence, the awards of compensation passed by the Tribunal to the respective claimants is modified to the extent that the owner of the lorry is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and the Insurance Company alone is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the respective claimants. 26. In other respects, the judgment of the Tribunal is confirmed. 27. In the result, the appeals are allowed. No costs.