J u d g m e n t:-Collision between a private bus, bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9389, owned by the fourth respondent and insured with United India Insurance Company, Karnataka, the fifth respondent herein and a lorry bearing Registration No.TDN 8483, owned by the second respondent and insured with appellant-National Insurance Company Limited, Salem, which resulted in the death of 17 persons, out of 56 passengers, who were proceeding from Thipathur to Thiruvannamalai, to attend a marriage function. As per the version of the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured claimants, who made separate claim petitions that on 13.12.2000, about 2.45 P.M., when the bus was proceeding on Sangarapettai Lake Bund Road, the abovesaid lorry, loaded fully with sugarcane, which came in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus and in the result, the driver of the bus, lost control of the vehicle, the bus capsized and fell into a lake and 17 passengers out of 56 died on the spot. The driver of the bus also died. According to the legal representatives of the deceased/claimants, the accident, had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and therefore, its owner, viz., the third respondent and the insurer, National Insurance Company Limited, appellant herein, alone are liable to pay compensation. 2. The appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd., Salem, in its counter affidavit before the Tribunal, inter alia contended that the lorry bearing Registration No.TDN 8483, owned by the third respondent herein, was insured with them, for the period between 05.05.2000 and 04.05.2001. On the fateful day, when the lorry driver noticed the bus, coming from the opposite direction, stopped the lorry, on the left side of the road and it was the bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the lorry and thereafter, capsized and fell into the lake. The appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that though FIR registered at the instance of one of the passengers and subsequent became a claimant, clearly alleged that the bus driver alone was the cause for the accident, the claimants have instituted the claim petitions, falsely attributing negligence against the driver of the lorry insured with them. Hence, the claim petitions preferred against the appellant- Insurance Company are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the claim petitions preferred against the appellant- Insurance Company are liable to be dismissed. Without prejudice to the same, the appellant-Insurance Company disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions. 3. The fifth respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd., Karnataka State, the insurer of the bus, bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9389, owned by the fourth respondent, in their counter affidavit, has submitted that on the date of accident, the bus was not covered by any valid insurance. They further submitted that the insurance particulars, pertaining to the bus, filed before the Tribunal, have been fabricated, for the purpose of claim petitions. When the policy was issued, the vehicle was owned by one Mr.K.R.Karjappa. The policy was valid between 08.12.1998 and 07.12.1999. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold to Mr.Anil Kumar, fourth respondent in this appeal. The policy was changed from 12.05.1999 to 07.12.1999, in the name of Mr.Anil Kumar, the fourth respondent in this appeal. 4. The fifth respondent in their counter affidavit has further submitted that for the period between 09.11.2000 and 08.11.2001, no policy was subsisting with them and further contended that the policy filed in the Tribunal had been created for the purpose of the claim petitions to obtain compensation from them. They have also submitted that the permit, fitness certificate for the bus, have been created for the purpose of making the owner and the insurer of the bus, the fifth respondent herein, as liable to pay compensation. 5. It is also their contention that at the time of accident, the driver of the bus, did not possess any valid licence and that the Regional Transport Officer, Thumkar, has given a complaint in Cr.No.1 of 2001, under Section 42 I.P.C., to Thumkar Police Station to that effect. The fifth respondent-Insurance Company has further submitted that inasmuch as in all the claim petitions, the claimants have clearly stated that driver of the lorry alone was responsible for the accident, the owner of the bus and its insurer are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. On this pleadings, the Tribunal has framed two issues, viz., (1) Whether the accident, had occurred due to the fault of the driver of the bus or lorry or both were negligent? and (2) Quantum of compensation? 7. 6. On this pleadings, the Tribunal has framed two issues, viz., (1) Whether the accident, had occurred due to the fault of the driver of the bus or lorry or both were negligent? and (2) Quantum of compensation? 7. As all the claim petitions relate to same facts, they were taken up together and common evidence was let in by the claimants and the two Insurance Companies. 8. Before the Tribunal, respondents 3 and 4 in this appeal, owners of the lorry and the bus respectively, remained exparte. The drivers of both the vehicles were not examined. Legal representatives of all the claimants were examined as Pws.1 to 11. Apart from the claimants, PW.2, a witness to speak about the manner of accident was examined on the side of the claimants. On behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd., Salem, the Assistant Administrative Officer, Ulanganathapillai, was examined as RW.1. United India Insurance Company, fifth respondent in these appeals examined the Regional Officer, Hosur, on their side as RW.2. Ex.P.1 to P21 were marked on the side of the claimants. Exs.R1 to R7 were marked on behalf of the Insurance Companies. 9. The Tribunal, on analysis of oral and documentary evidence, let in by the claimants and the Insurance companies, held that the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TDN 8483, was solely responsible for the accident and consequently, directed the appellant-Insurance company to indemnify the owner of the lorry. Depending upon the avocation, dependency of the legal representatives of the deceased, compensation was determined by the Tribunal in respect of each of the claim petitions. Being aggrieved by the finding that it was the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, by its driver has caused the accident, resulting in death of 17 passengers and the consequential liability fastened to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the claimants, National Insurance Company Ltd., Salem-1, has preferred 17 separate appeals. As pleadings and submissions are common, all the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 10. As regards the finding regarding negligence, fixed on the lorry driver, Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant-National Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the accident had occurred solely due to the fault of the bus driver, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 10. As regards the finding regarding negligence, fixed on the lorry driver, Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant-National Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the accident had occurred solely due to the fault of the bus driver, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Though the road was wide enough to allow free passage of two vehicles, he had dashed against the lorry insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and in the result, the bus capsized and fell into the lake. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that PW.1, first informant to the police, who had spoken about the manner of accident, during the course of trial before the Claims Tribunal, has retracted from his version made before the Police, only for the purpose of securing compensation to the accident victims and nowhere, in his evidence, he has accused the Police for making incorrect particulars, at the time of registering the crime, against the driver of the bus, who unfortunately died in the accident, after the bus fell into the lake. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has erred in placing reliance on the evidence of PW.2, an eye-witness. He also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the sketch and the photographs, which would support to the probabilities of the case, that the accident had occurred purely due to the fault of the bus driver. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the fifth respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference. He further submitted that the oral testimony of the witnesses has been properly analysed by the Tribunal, while adjudicating the question of negligence. According to him, the finding based on solemn statements, cannot be said to be perverse or it is a case of no evidence, warranting interference, if tested on the principles of preponderance of probability. He also submitted that FIR can at best, be taken on record, as substantive evidence, to prove the accident, not to the manner of accident. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. He also submitted that FIR can at best, be taken on record, as substantive evidence, to prove the accident, not to the manner of accident. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. The case of the claimants in all the Claim Petitions is that on 13.12.2000 about 2.45 p.m., when the bus bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9389, was plying on Singarapettai Tank Bund Road from Thipathur to Thiruvannamalai, a lorry bearing Registration No.TTW 8483, fully loaded with sugarcane, insured with the appellant-National Insurance Company, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the bus, due to which, the bus driver lost control, the bus capsized and fell into the lake. It was also their contention that though FIR has been registered against the bus driver, it was only the lorry driver, who caused the accident and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petitions, viz., owner of the lorry and its insurer are alone liable to pay compensation. 15. Per contra, it is the contention of the second respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd., appellant herein that the lorry was driven carefully on the left side of the road and after seeing the bus coming on the opposite direction, the lorry was stopped. Due to rash and negligent driving, the bus driver was unable to control the vehicle and dashed against the lorry and it fell into the lake. It is the further contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that on the basis of a complaint of one Mr.Kumar, FIR has been registered in Cr.No.692 of 2002 against the driver of the bus on the file of Singarapettai Police. 16. United India Insurance Company Ltd., the fifth respondent in this appeal, has contended that, at the time of accident, the bus bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9398, was not insured with them and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. According to them, even the Fitness Certificate, Permit and other documents have been forged to rope in the fifth respondent to pay compensation. According to them, even the Fitness Certificate, Permit and other documents have been forged to rope in the fifth respondent to pay compensation. Crime No.992 of 2000 on the file of Singarapettai Police, has been registered against Mr.Anil Kumar, bus owner of Thunkur District, under Sections 66(1) read with 192-A, 146(1) read with 196 and Clause 5 read with 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also against the driver of the bus, Mr.Nagaraj, who died in the accident, under Sections 279, 304 IPC., read with Rule 3 read with Sections 181, 192-A, 196 and Section 56 read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the National Insurance Company Ltd., as the vehicle was not insured with them, they are not liable to pay compensation. 17. The 1st claimant in M.C.O.P.Nos.665, 666 and 678 of 2001, has been examined as PW.1. Along with him, 10 other claimants, in other claim petitions, which arose out of the same accident, were examined as Witnesses, regarding the manner of accident. On their behalf, PW.12, said to be an eye-witness, has also been examined and Exs.P1 to P22, were marked. The Assistant Administrative Officer has been examined as RW.1, on behalf of National Insurance Company and the Divisional Officer of Oriental Insurance Company, Bangalore, has been examined as RW.2. Exs.R1 to R7 were marked on behalf of the Insurance Companies. 18. PW.1, Kumar has deposed that on 13.12.2000, when he was travelling in the bus, bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9389, from Thipathur to Thiruvannamalai on Singarapettai Tank Bund Road and when the bus was moving slowly, the lorry which came in the opposite direction fully loaded with sugarcane, dashed against the right side of the bus. In the result, the bus capsized and fell into the lake. All the Witnesses/claimants, have supported his version. 19. RW.1, Assistant Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company Ltd., appellant herein, has deposed that Ex.R2, Charge Sheet, has been filed against the owner and driver of the bus, bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9389. He has further deposed that the lorry owner was not at fault. However, he had not witnessed the accident. He has also deposed that he is not aware of the preparation of Ex.R3- Sketch and other documents prepared by the police department. He has further deposed that the lorry owner was not at fault. However, he had not witnessed the accident. He has also deposed that he is not aware of the preparation of Ex.R3- Sketch and other documents prepared by the police department. RW.2, Divisional Officer of Hosur United India Insurance Company is also not a witness to the accident, but he has spoken about the policy details of the bus, bearing Registration No.KA 06 A 9389. 20. PW.12, Mr.Kaliappan, is a third party and according to him, his lands are located near the place of accident and that on the date of accident, the lorry, which came from the eastern direction, dashed against the bus, which came in the opposite direction and in the result, the bus capsized and fell into the lake. According to his categorical assertion, the bus was driven slowly and that the lorry driver alone caused the accident, by dashing it on the right side of the bus. 21. Though Ex.P1 – FIR has been registered against the driver of the private bus and Ex.P2 – Charge Sheet has been filed against the driver and owner of the bus, it is the case of PW.1, Kumar, before the Tribunal that though he had narrated the manner of accident to the Police, stating that the driver of the lorry alone was responsible for the accident, since he did not know Tamil, his signatures were obtained by Singarapettai Police and a criminal case has been registered against the bus driver. 22. As the contents of the FIR were written in Tamil and since he could not read Tamil, he has affirmed before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred solely due to the fault of the lorry driver. When all the claimants have uniformly deposed that it was the lorry driver, who caused the accident, duly supported by the evidence of PW.12, an eye-witness, Mr.Kaliappan, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is every possibility that PW.1, Kumar, could have merely signed the complaint, prepared by the police in Tamil, without understanding its contents. 23. Per contra, both the witnesses, Rws.1 and 2, Officers examined on behalf of the Insurance Companies have not witnessed the accident. 23. Per contra, both the witnesses, Rws.1 and 2, Officers examined on behalf of the Insurance Companies have not witnessed the accident. The appellant-Insurance Company has not taken any steps to summon the lorry driver or conducted any independent enquiry by examining any independent witness, to prove that it was the bus driver, who caused the accident. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Karnataka, fifth respondent in this appeal, the Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, let in by the claimants and the appellant-Insurance Company, has decided the question of negligence. 24. In Virat Sama v. Mohan Lal reported in 1994 ACJ 432, while dealing with the ground taken before the Tribunal, for not awarding compensation that in the police report, negligence was not attributed to the autorickshaw driver, alleged to have caused the accident, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, held that, “in accident cases, FIR is often lodged in a haste and the same cannot be a substitute for the evidence giving exhaustive version of the occurrence. The statements before the Tribunal are made on solemn affirmation, whereas the FIR is never lodged on solemn affirmation.” 25. FIR lodged cannot be a substitute for the exhaustive version about the manner of accident. It is well settled that statements made on solemn affirmation, are subject to cross examination, whereas, FIR is never lodged on solemn affirmation. Further, it is also well settled that the object of FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion. On investigation, the Police may close the FIR or lay charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, even though the complaint is not specifically made against him. Thus, the contents of the FIR are always open to scrutiny by the competent Court and it can be used for corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witnesses, regarding the manner of accident and in such circumstances, the contents of FIR, without corroboration, oral or documentary, has to be considered with care. 26. Thus, the contents of the FIR are always open to scrutiny by the competent Court and it can be used for corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witnesses, regarding the manner of accident and in such circumstances, the contents of FIR, without corroboration, oral or documentary, has to be considered with care. 26. Another fact to be taken note of is that in some cases, the injured may have to be shifted from the accident site, immediately for treatment and there is always a possibility for a third party to give the first information to the police, which may not contain the correct and proper version or in a given case, where there is a collision of two or more vehicles, the tort-feasor himself may give a distorted version, about the manner of accident. In which case, the injured cannot be made to suffer in the claim for compensation. At the time of furnishing the details regarding the cause of injuries in the hospital, the injured may give the correct version, or it could be even vice versa. Therefore, the contentions of the FIR cannot be simply accepted as true and correct version, as regards the manner of accident and it is the duty of the Tribunal to examine the veracity of the same with the oral and other documentary evidence. Therefore, the evidence rendered in the criminal case is not ipso facto proof of negligence in claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As the contents of FIR need not always be true and correct, it cannot be taken as substantive evidence and it is only a document for the purpose of corroboration and/or contradiction. 27. In the case on hand, while arriving at the conclusion of negligence against the driver of the lorry, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr.B.D.Bagri v. Daulat Ram reported in 1998 ACJ 1303 , where the Court, while considering the issue as to whether the Tribunal can draw inference from the contents of the FIR to foist liability on the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, held that the Tribunal has to decide the matter on the strength of the evidence let in the case. The Tribunal has also taken note of the decision of this Court in M.D., Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation v. Ammai Ammal reported in 1989 ACJ 847, where this Court, while considering the issue as to whether the judgment of the Criminal Court, acquitting the driver, can ipso facto be applied for arriving at the decision regarding negligence, in a motor claim cases, has held that irrespective of the judgment of acquittal or conviction in a criminal case, the Tribunal is duty bound to look into the entire evidence and come to an independent conclusion, regarding the manner, in which, the vehicle involved is in the accident. 28. Reverting back to the case on hand, though FIR has been registered against the driver of the bus, at the instance of one of the passengers, the contents of the same, being recorded in Tamil has been specifically denied by the informant and all the claimants have uniformly blamed the driver of the lorry, for the cause of the accident. Even assuming that one of the claimants had given incorrect particulars to the Police or his version not properly recorded, that would not affect the common cause made in other claim cases, where their testimony is duly supported by PW.12, an eye-witness. Solemn statements of the claimants put to cross-examination and supported by direct evidence, like an eye-witness to the accident, have been given weightage. In the case on hand, there is no concrete rebuttal evidence as to the manner of accident, except the oral testimony of Rws.1 to 3, officers of the Insurance Company, who have not witnessed the accident. When the Tribunal enjoined with a duty to look into the entire evidence, has arrived at an independent conclusion, regarding the manner of accident, then the same should not be lightly interfered with. 29. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding regarding negligence fixed on the diver of the lorry, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The finding is confirmed. Consequently, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants. 30. In view of the above, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.