Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern disposal of M. A. Nos. 259,260, 451, 452, 453, 454, 456,457, 458, 459 and 460 of 2007, as all these appeals have arisen out of one accident and by one award and in all the appeals parties are one and the same except the claimants. ( 2. ) THE impugned award is dated 30. 10. 2006 passed by Additional MACT, Jobat, whereby the claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of 11 deceased and one injured were decided, out of which Claim Case No. 129/04 and 128/04 were dismissed and rests were allowed and compensation was awarded, however, respondent No. 3 was exonerated. ( 3. ) SHORT facts common in all the cases are that the claim petitions were filed alleging that on 17,9. 2004 at about 6:00am Respondent No. 1 was going on highway on a truck bearing registration No. GJ-3y 8395, which was owned by Respondent n. 2 and insured with Respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the offending truck was in high speed being driven rashly and negligently with the result when it was passing through village Sahila, at that time, it dashed 12 persons, with the result 11 persons died and one Harisingh sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Respondent no. 1, therefore, claim petitions be allowed and compensation be awarded. ( 4. ) CLAIM petitions were contested by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein all the allegations made in the claim petitions were denied and it was alleged that since the offending vehicle is insured, therefore, in case the claim petition succeeds then Respondent No. 3 is liable for payment of compensation. Claim petitions were also contested by Respondent No. 3 by filing independent written statement, wherein allegations made in the claim petitions were denied and it was alleged that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle, while it was carrying passengers, which was in violation of terms of the policy of the insurance. It was alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petitions be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants except the Claim Petition Nos. It was alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petitions be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants except the Claim Petition Nos. 129/04 and 128/04 and awarded compensation, however exonerated Respondent No. 3 on the ground that offending vehicle was goods vehicle, therefore, Respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation, as there was violation of terms of the policy. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of award and also by rejection of the claim Petition Nos. 128/04 and 129/04 and also by the direction of exoneration of respondent No. 3, present appeals have been filed. ( 5. ) BEING aggrieved by the direction whereby respondent No. 3 was exonerated, respondent No. 2 has also filed the cross-objections in all the appeals except M. A. No. 259/07 and 260/07, which are arising out of claim case No. 129/04 and 128/04, as in both the aforesaid appeals the claim petition filed by the claimants were dismissed. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants in all the appeals submit that against the award passed in Claim Petition No. 128/04, appeal filed by the appellant is M. A. No. 260/07. It is submitted that in Claim Petition No. 128/04 deceased was Rakesh aged 4 years. It is submitted that the claim petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the name of deceased has not been mentioned in the FIR, which cannot be a ground of dismissal of claim petition. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel further submits that so far as another claim petition No. 129/04 is concerned against which the appeal filed is numbered as M. A. No. 259/07, was dismissed on the ground that certified copy of post mortem report of deceased ramtubai has not been filed. Learned counsel submits that since the death certificate was filed and the death of Ramtubai was not disputed, even by respondents, therefore, there was no justification in dismissing the claim petition only oh the ground that certified copy of the postmortem report has not been filed by the appellant. It is submitted that appellant examined Than Singh, who has proved the certificate. Thus it is amply proved that Ramtubai died in the said motor accident. It is submitted that appellant examined Than Singh, who has proved the certificate. Thus it is amply proved that Ramtubai died in the said motor accident. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing both the claim petitions. ( 8. ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that in case of child death, learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 77,000/-, in claim Petition No. 122/04 wherein the deceased was Raghunath aged 8 years and Rs. 82,000/- in Claim Petition No. 126/04, wherein the deceased was Ku. Hatri aged 10 years. It is submitted that similarly in Claim Case No. 124/04, where the deceased was Laxman aged 4 years, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 67,000/-only. Learned counsel further submits that in other death cases the income of the deceased has been assessed @ Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses, the amount of loss of dependency has been calculated. Learned counsel further submits that since the accident is of the year 2004, therefore, the income of the deceased has been assessed on notional basis, which is grossly inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced. In the matters of child death learned counsel submits that after taking into consideration notional income and also after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. ( 9. ) SO far as exoneration of Respondent No. 3 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submit that case of the appellants before learned Tribunal was that the accident occurred at the time when the deceased were sitting by the side of the road. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has discarded the evidence adduced by the appellants, only on the ground that in the FIR which was lodged by Harisingh who is appellant in M. A. No. 456/07, it is mentioned that all the deceased persons were travelling in the offending truck. It is submitted that the findings of learned tribunal is contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellants. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel further submits that learned Tribunal committed error in placing reliance on the contents of the FIR, which were contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellants. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Nanhu Singh Vs. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel further submits that learned Tribunal committed error in placing reliance on the contents of the FIR, which were contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellants. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer - 2005 (1) MPWN Note 91, wherein the division Bench of this Court has held that, in claim petition Tribunal cannot rely on evidence of criminal case or FIR version. It has to assess evidence given in claim case only. Further reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dhanwanti Vs. Kulwant Singh- 1994 ACJ 708 , wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that, evidence recorded in criminal court and the findings arrived at therein are not applicable in claim cases. It was further held that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only for the purposes of corroboration or contradiction of the maker only. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the matter of Mataji Bewa Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jeena- 1994 ACJ 1303, wherein Orissa High Court held that, contents of charge sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in claim proceedings and the Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Dr. B. D. Bagri Vs. Daulat Ram- 1998 ACJ 1303 , wherein Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that, Tribunal cannot draw inference from the contents of the FIR to foist liability on drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and the Tribunal has to decide the matter on the strength of the evidence led in the case. ( 11. ) ON the strength of the aforesaid decisions learned counsel submits that the findings of learned Tribunal wherein the Respondent No. 3 was exonerated is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that even if this court is of the view that the deceased and the injured were travelling in the offending vehicle in breach of the terms of the policy then too, so far as the appellants are concerned insurance company is liable for payment of compensation and at the most right of recovery can be given to it. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of Gwalior Bench of this Court in the matter of Jugal Kishore Vs. Ramlesh Devi- 2004 ACJ 297 , wherein a Full Bench of this Court held that, insurance company has to satisfy the award in favour of third party and recover the amount from the insured. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Honble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa bharathamma- 2004 ACJ 2094, wherein the Honble Apex Court in the matter where the autorickshaw met with accident resulting in death of two persons and third sustained injuries and insured had not obtained permit to ply the vehicle, held, that insurance company is not liable, however, insurance company directed to deposit the amount and recover the same from the insured by initiating proceedings before the executing court. Reliance was also placed in the matter of Pramod Kumar Agrawal Vs. Mushtari Begum- 2004 ACJ 1903 , wherein the passengers were travelling in goods vehicle and Honble Apex Court has held that, risk of passenger carried for hire or reward in a truck is not covered and insurance company is not liable for death of fare-paying passenger, however, insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing court. Reliance was also placed in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur- 2004 ACJ 428, wherein also in a case where gratuitous passengers were travelling in a goods vehicle, Honble Apex Court directed that, insurance company shall satisfy the award in favour of the claimant and recover the amount from the owner in execution proceedings. Lastly reliance was placed on a decision of Honble apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Darshana Devi- 2008 ACJ 1388 , wherein the deceased was sitting on mudguard of tractor when he fell down due to its rash and negligent driving, Honble Apex Court held that, liability of insurance company is statutory, its defence is limited but held that in a situation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of india, read with article 136 thereof suitable directions can be issued for doing complete justice to the parties. ( 12. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that Ex. ( 12. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that Ex. D-1 is the policy in which there is a clause under a heading of AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN TERMS AND right OF RECOVERY, which reads as under :- "nothing in this policy or any endorsement hereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by this policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the motor vehicles Act 1988. But the insured shall repay to the company all sums paid by the company, which the Company would not have been liable to pay but for the said provision. " ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Zaharulnisha, Reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3251, wherein in a case where the deceased died in a road accident, when scooterist hit his bicycle and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter and also admitted as he was holding license for driving heavy motor vehicle, Honble Apex Court has held that act of driving totally different class of vehicle was in violation of Section 10 (2) of M. V. Act and Insurance company cannot be held liable. It was further held that in a case where the insurers, relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. In some cases, violation of criminal law, particularly violation of the provisions of the M. V. Act, may result in absolving the insurers but, the same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event, the exception applies only to acts done intentionally or so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences of his act might be. The provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 149 of the M. V. Act may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance. The liability of the insurer is a statutory one. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory. ( 14. The liability of the insurer is a statutory one. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory. ( 14. ) LEARNED counsel submits that in the circumstances the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount awarded be enhanced and the findings of learned Tribunal relating to exoneration of respondent No. 3 for payment of compensation be set aside. ( 15. ) MISS Kirti Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the FIR which has been lodged on the complaint of Harsingh is in Gujrati language, which is marked as ex. P/1. It is submitted that Ex. P/2 is the statement of Harsingh, which was recorded by the police, which is also in Gujrati language, while Harsingh was resident of State of m. P. and was an illiterate. It is submitted that since Gujrati language was a foreign language for Harsingh, therefore, on the basis of Ex. P/1 and P/2 it can not be held that harsingh was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith other who died in the accident. It is submitted that cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 be allowed and the directions whereby respondent No. 3 has been exonerated be set aside. ( 16. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that Harisingh was the only person who survived in the accident and lodged the complaint in which it was stated by him that all the passengers were sitting in the offending vehicle along with him. It is submitted that to avoid the liability Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has examined Ram Prasad a Development Officer of Company who has proved Ex. D-1, which is the policy, according to which Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation, if the persons are travelling in the offendng truck. It is submitted that the appeals be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the reliance was placed by the appellants themselves on the FIR and at this stage the appellants cannot be permitted to take the plea that the contents of the FIR are not admitted to the appellants. For the aforesaid contentions reliance was placed on a decision of the Honble Apex court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. For the aforesaid contentions reliance was placed on a decision of the Honble Apex court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla- 2007 ACJ 1928 , wherein on the basis of FIR lodged by passengers in van, criminal case was registered against driver of truck, but had to be closed as the truck and its driver could not be traced. Thereafter claimants filed claim petition against the driver, owner and insurance company of van and Tribunal on the basis of evidence including FIR held that van driver was not driving rashly and negligently and dismissed the claim application, while High Court relied upon the deposition of two witnesses and held that as FIR was not legally proved, driver of van should be held guilty of rash and negligent driving and further held that FIR had been relied upon by the parties on both sides and the claimants had made a reference to it in their claim application. FIR was exhibited as both the parties are intended to rely upon the FIR, irrespective of the fact that contents of the document have been proved or not. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in placing the reliance on the contents of FIR. Further reliance was placed on a decision of the Honble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prema Devi- 2008 ACJ 1149 , wherein the Honble Apex Court has taken into consideration the liability of the Insurance Company, where the passengers were travelling in goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers and it was observed that, insurance company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that owner of vehicle had not taken policy for such passenger and there was no requirement under law for obtaining a policy covering such passenger, therefore, claimant may recover the compensation amount from owner of vehicle. Lastly reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal Sharma- 2006 (II) MPJR 320 , wherein this Court has taken a view that no relief can be granted beyond ambit of pleadings. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submits that learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and exonerated the Respondent No. 3. ( 17. ) LEARNED counsel further submits that so far as the condition mentioned in the policy Ex. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submits that learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and exonerated the Respondent No. 3. ( 17. ) LEARNED counsel further submits that so far as the condition mentioned in the policy Ex. D-1 is concerned it is related to Section 141 of the Motor Vehicle Act. ( 18. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in dismissing the claim case No. 129/04, wherein the compensation was claimed on account of death of Ramtubai against which M. A. No. 259/07 has been filed, as the postmortem report of Ramtubai was not filed. Learned counsel further submits that similarly the claim case No. 128/04 has also rightly been dismissed as the name of deceased Rakesh was not shown in fir, against which M. A. No. 260/07 is filed. So far as other cases are concerned, learned counsel submits that looking to the injuries sustained by Harsingh, learned tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 36,500/- in claim case No. 127/04, against which M. A. No. 456/07 has been filed. So far as other death cases are concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper, which requires no interference. ( 19. ) SO far as exoneration of respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is concerned, learned counsel submits that the date of accident is 17/09/04 at about 6:00 AM and the FIR was also lodged on that very day, at about 4:45 PM. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged at Police Station Sayla by Harsingh himself, who sustained injuries. It is submitted that in the FIR Harsingh has stated at length that he was travelling in the offending truck along with deceased passengers. It is submitted that in the claim petition nothing has been stated by the appellant that in what circumstances the accident took place. Learned counsel further submits that in exercise of powers conferred by Motor Vehicles Act, has been framed. As per Sub-rule (1) of 220 an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified under the Act shall be in Form M. P. M. V. R. (COMP-A), of which proforma is given. It is submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellants was not on the requisite proforma. As per Sub-rule (1) of 220 an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified under the Act shall be in Form M. P. M. V. R. (COMP-A), of which proforma is given. It is submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellants was not on the requisite proforma. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR Ex. P/1 speaks in volume that the deceased and injured were travelling in the offending truck, which was not meant for carrying passengers. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hussain Sab, Reported in 2006 ACJ 1352 , wherein in a case where death of two passengers took place when they were travelling in a truck and truck met with an accident and the claimants contended that deceased were returning from place of work and were hit by the truck, while the FIR produced by the claimants and other documents relating to the criminal case, which disclose that deceased were travelling in goods vehicle as passengers, Karnataka High Court has held that the deceased were passengers in the goods vehicle and insurance company is exempted from liability. It was also held that the documents produced by claimants bind them. ( 20. ) SO far as cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 are concerned, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the cross-objections filed by respondent no. 2 itself is not maintainable as respondent No. 2 has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby the respondent No. 2 is required to deposit requisite amount towards the payment of award. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Anuradha Kaushik Vs. Varun Ground Water Development Corporation, Reported in 2007 ACJ 2877 , wherein Divisional Bench of this Court while considering the maintainability of the cross-objection in a case where tile awarded amount was deposited by the Insurance company has held that the cross-objections filed by the owner or driver of offending vehicle are not maintainable without making statutory deposit. It is submitted that the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 be dismissed only on this short ground. ( 21. ) ON the strength of this, learned counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in exonerating the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 be dismissed only on this short ground. ( 21. ) ON the strength of this, learned counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in exonerating the respondent No. 3. ( 22. ) SO far as dismissal of Claim Petition Nos. 128/04 and 129/04 in which the compensation was claimed by the appellant Nagarsingh on account of death of his son Rakesh aged 4 years and wife Ramtubai aged 30 years, which is under challenge in M. A. Nos. 259/07 and 260/07 is concerned, from perusal of the record it is evident that the claim petitions were dismissed only on the ground that the name of deceased Rakesh aged 4 years did not find place in FIR and certified copy of postmortem report of Ramtubai was not filed. From perusal of the record it appears that enough evidence is on record to show that Rakesh and Ramtubai died in the said accident, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. ( 23. ) SO far as amount of compensation is concerned, on account of injuries sustained by appellant Harsingh in claim case No. 127/04, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,500/- is concerned, Harsingh sustained fracture of ulna bone and was hospitalized from 19/09/04 to 22/09/04, breakup of which is as under: ( 24. ) IN the opinion of this Court, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant harsingh, amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side, as on number of heads no amount has been awarded and on some of heads the amount awarded is on lower side. In view of this, appellant Harsingh is entitled for the following amount- ( 25. ) THUS, the appellant Harsingh is entitled for total sum of Rs. 66,500/-, instead of Rs. 36,500/ -. ( 26. ) SO far as amount of compensation in other cases are concerned, appellant harsingh has filed claim case Nos. 124/04, 123/04, 122/04 and 126/04 of which respective appeals are M. A. Nos. 453/07, 454/07, 457/07 and 460/07. On account of death of child the claim petition Nos. 124/04, 122/04 and 126/04 are filed by Harisingh of which respective M. A. Nos. are 453/07, 457/07 and 460/07. 124/04, 123/04, 122/04 and 126/04 of which respective appeals are M. A. Nos. 453/07, 454/07, 457/07 and 460/07. On account of death of child the claim petition Nos. 124/04, 122/04 and 126/04 are filed by Harisingh of which respective M. A. Nos. are 453/07, 457/07 and 460/07. Another case of child death is claim case No. 128/04 of which M. A. No. is 260/07 in which deceased Rakesh was aged 4 years and claimant is Nagarsingh who also lost his wife and sole surviver is Nagarsingh. In all the cases the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. In case of child death the compensation ought to have been awarded after taking in to consideration the notional income @ Rs. 1,500/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. On other heads also suitable amount ought to have been awarded. Thus in case of child death, which are MA. Nos. 260/07, 453/07, 457/07 and 460/07 appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 27. ) CHART of which is as under: ( 28. ) SO far as other M. A. Nos. 449/07, 259/07, 451/07, 452/07, 454/07, 458/07 and 459/07 are concerned, learned tribunal has taken in to consideration the notional income and after deducting l/3rd towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 10 awarded the loss of dependency and further awarded a sum of rs. 9,000/- on account of other heads, while in M. A. No. 259/07 the claim petition was dismissed. It appears that on account of other heads the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side. In all the appeals, appellants are entitled for total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, chart of which is as under:- ( 29. ) SO far as the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 are concerned, since the requisite amount of award has not been deposited by respondent No. 2, which is the mandatory requirement of Section 173 of the Act, therefore, the same can not be taken into consideration and is hereby dismissed. ( 30. ) SO far as the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 are concerned, since the requisite amount of award has not been deposited by respondent No. 2, which is the mandatory requirement of Section 173 of the Act, therefore, the same can not be taken into consideration and is hereby dismissed. ( 30. ) SO far as exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is true that the claim case can not be decided only on the strength of FIR or on the strength of record of criminal case, but at the same time the fact stated in FIR can not be ignored where the claimant himself placed reliance on the FIR. In the claim petition the claimants have not stated that in what circumstances the accident took place, while the claimants were duty bound to state the circumstances in which the accident took place, as per the proforma which is prescribed under the motor vehicles Rules, 1994. ( 31. ) IN the present case Harsingh, who is not only the informer but also the injured and was travelling with his wife Thavlibai and sons Raghunath, Laxman and daughter ku. Hatri and all of them died in the said accident, himself has lodged the complaint. Ex. P/1 which is in Gujrati language of which translated copy is Ex. P/1 (A ). Ex. P/2 is the statement of Harsingh, which was also recorded on the same day. Ex. P/3 is the charge sheet of which copy is Ex. P/3 (C ). Ex. D/1 is the hindi translation of statement of Harsingh, which has also been filed by the appellant as Ex. P/2 which is in Gujrati language. In the statement given by harsingh to the police it has been stated that on 16/09/04 at about 04:00 pm, he was going with his wife Thavlibai, daughter Hatri, sons laxman and Raghunath and also his brother-in-law Patliya, Sursingh, sister-in-law ghughri, Budhiben and Madhav. It was also stated by him that along with him Ramsingh,madan and Nevla were also travelling. It was stated that all of them came from their village by bus to Dahod. It was further stated that with other labourers all of them came from Dahod to Barodra in a truck and at about 2:00 AM all of them boarded the offending truck for going to Morbi. It was stated that all of them came from their village by bus to Dahod. It was further stated that with other labourers all of them came from Dahod to Barodra in a truck and at about 2:00 AM all of them boarded the offending truck for going to Morbi. It was further stated that because of rash and negligent driving the offending Matador turtle down, with the result he sustained injuries and other persons died. ( 32. ) IN the present case appellants have produced the FIR and marked it in their evidence. It is solitary principal of law that the documents and its contents produced as evidence will bind the party who has produced the same. There is no duty on the part of the opponent to prove the contents of the documents produced by the other side. Inthe instant case, the first information report and the other documents relating to criminal case have been produced by the petitioners as their evidence. The said document binds the appellants. Had the first information report and the other documents are produced by the respondents, perhaps there would have been the duty on the part of the respondents to prove the documents produced by them by examining the relevant witness. Therefore, the contention that the first information report and other documents relating to criminal case are inadmissible and that the respondent No. 3 has not proved the contents is untenable. It is to be rioted that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to trials and inquiry relating to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In the matter of Arun Kumar Patel Vs. Smt. Terasi Saket, Reported in 2008 (II) MPWN Note-4, wherein Divisional Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Honble Apex court in the matter of Premlata (Supra) and has held that it is binding upon claimant. In the present case the FIR was lodged immediately after the accident and the statement was also recorded within two days. ( 33. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that learned tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim petition Nos. 129/04 and 128/04, which are under challenge in MA. No. 259/07 and 260/07. ( 33. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that learned tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim petition Nos. 129/04 and 128/04, which are under challenge in MA. No. 259/07 and 260/07. This Court is also of the view that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal in other claim appeals is on lower side, which requires enhancement. Each of the appellants shall be entitled for enhanced/awarded amount, as indicated above. Enhanced/awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7. 5% pa. from the date of application. ( 34. ) SO far as question of exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it appears that no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 liable and exonerating respondent No. 3, as the offending truck in which the appellant Harsingh and deceased were travelling was not meant for carrying passengers. ( 35. ) IN view of this, all the appeals stands partly allowed. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected appeals. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.