Judgment :- 1. Being aggrieved by the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-A-5599, insured with the appellant insurance Company and the consequential liability on the Company to pay compensation of Rs.1,32,500/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the quantum of the repair charges for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 23 G 0164 owned by the first respondent. 2. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether negligence can be fixed on the driver of any vehicle involved in the accident on the sole basis of Rough sketch drawn by the police. 3. It is the case of the first respondent that on 26.04.2000, about 4.00 P.M, when the Government vehicle Tempo Traveller Van bearing Registration No.TN 23 G 0164 was proceeding on Trichy -Chennai Road near Chinnaru, from south to north, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-31-A-5599, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at a great speed collided with a Government vehicle, causing extensive damages to the Government vehicle. The vehicle was surveyed and the damages were assessed and approved by a surveyor. The Surveyor found that the extent of damages was to the tune of Rs.1,32,500/- Claiming damages, the first respondent preferred a claim petition. Disputing the manner of accident, the appellant insurance company submitted that when the lorry bearing registration No. TN-31-A-5599 insured with them was driven slowly, adhering to traffic rules, the driver of the Tempo Traveller Van bearing No.TN 23 G 0164, owned by the Government, driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, resulting in a head on collision. As the tempo traveller van happened to be a police vehicle, a case has been registered against the driver of the lorry. It is also submitted that the assessment of loss suffered by the vehicle, was biased. It is the further case that the Government Surveyor has not given a proper report. In the above said circumstances, the appellant/Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, Ex.P1- Xerox Copy of F.I.R., dated 26.04.2000, Ex.P2-Certified Copy of M.V.I. Report, dated 27.04.2000 and Ex.P3-Quotation dated 18.02.2002. It is the further case that the Government Surveyor has not given a proper report. In the above said circumstances, the appellant/Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, Ex.P1- Xerox Copy of F.I.R., dated 26.04.2000, Ex.P2-Certified Copy of M.V.I. Report, dated 27.04.2000 and Ex.P3-Quotation dated 18.02.2002. Ex.P4-Photograph with negative of the damaged vehicle, Ex.P5-Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle TN 31 A 5599, Ex.P6-Xerox copy of the driving licence of Gunasekaran, dated 21.02.1995, Ex.P7-Xerox copy of R.C.Book of the Vehicle TN 23 G 0164, dated 25.04.1996, have been marked on the side of the first respondent, Ex.R1, dated 01.02.2007 , Ex.R2-Rough Sketch, have been marked on the side of the appellant insurance Company. 5. On the side of the first respondent, two witnesses have been examined. On the side of the appellant insurance company, the investigating officer has been examined as R.W.1. 6. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 31 A 5599 insured with the appellant and based on the assessment made by P.W.2, an approved Mechanic, quantified the compensation at Rs.1,32,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 7. Assailing the correctness of the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 31 A 5599 insured with appellant Company, Mr.S.Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company invited the attention of this Court, to the pleadings made in the claim petition and submitted that it was a head on collision on Trichy-Chennai High Road, when the vehicles were moving in the Opposite direction. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal, has failed to consider the contents of Ex.P1-F.I.R, that the accident has occurred on the middle of the road and when Ex.R2-Sketch marked on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company clearly indicates the position of the vehicles, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the same in proper perspective. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal, has failed to consider the contents of Ex.P1-F.I.R, that the accident has occurred on the middle of the road and when Ex.R2-Sketch marked on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company clearly indicates the position of the vehicles, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the same in proper perspective. According to him, in Ex.R2-Rough Sketch, the police vehicle is shown on the right side of the road and therefore, it could be inferred that the driver of the police van who had gone to the right side of the road has caused the accident, by dashing against the lorry, which came from north to south, in the opposite direction. 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, this vital aspect, as to the place of accident as indicated in the site sketch has been omitted to be considered by the Claims Tribunal, on the sole ground that the Tempo traveller van belonged to the police. By proper consideration of Ex.R2-Sketch, the claims tribunal ought to have fixed negligence on the driver of the Tempo traveller van alone, or atleast fixed negligence, equally on both drivers, as it there was a head on collision. On the quantum of damages, he submitted that the claims Tribunal erred in accepting the value of damages at Rs.1,32,500/- solely on the basis of estimate by the repairer without marking any documents supporting the purchase of spare parts and labour bills. 9. On the rate of interest awarded on the quantum of damages, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that when the claim petition was dismissed for default for non prosecution, by the first respondent/claimant, the respondent is not entitled to interest, on the damages, quantified from the date of claim petition till payment. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that the Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence let in by both parties in proper perspective and arrived at a reasonable conclusion, which cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference. He has also submitted that the assessment of damages has been done properly and no contra evidence has been let in, on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company. He has also submitted that the assessment of damages has been done properly and no contra evidence has been let in, on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company. Inviting the attention of this Court, to the details of damages, extracted in the award itself, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the estimate arrived at is reasonable and no reduction is called for. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. It is true that in the claim petition, averments have been made to the effect that there was a head on collision. According to the first respondent, the Government vehicle tempo traveller van was driven on Trichy-Chennai Road, from South to North and a lorry bearing No.TN 31 5593 was coming in the opposite direction. As per Ex.P1-F.I.R, given by one Mr.P.Neelakandan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupathur Crime Town Police Station, Vellore District, after production of three accused in Crime No.381/1999 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Srivilliputhur, the accused were escorted by a Head Constable, four police constables, along with the driver of the tempo traveller, under his supervision and that he was also travelling in the same van. When they were proceeding from the said Court to Vellore Central Prison, Trichy-Chennai Road, near Chinnaru, a lorry was coming in the opposite direction. It came to the right side of the road, dashed against the tempo traveller van causing damages. The F.I.R. further reads that the Special Inspector of Police, some Police men, driver and all the three accused sustained minor injuries. The complainant, namely, the Sub Inspector of Police, driver of the van and one accused Manivannan were treated in Government Hospital, Perambalur. The Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of Sub Inspector of Police, in the Government Hospital, has registered aCrime No. 163 of 2000 under Sections 279, 337 I.P.C. Though both parties have blamed their drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, and attributed negligence, both of them, have not taken any steps to examine their respective drivers. The Special Sub Inspector of Police, who had given F.I.R. has been examined. The Special Sub Inspector of Police, who had given F.I.R. has been examined. The report of the investigating officer, dated 01.02.2007, marked as Ex.R1 cannot be given any credence, as the appellant/Insurance Company has not taken any steps to examine the persons from whom the statements have been recorded, for the preparation of Ex.R1. If in a Claim for compensation, if the investigating officer's report, prepared in the above said manner has to be given credence, to disprove the oral testimony of claimant, duly supported by any independent witnesses or corroborated by documentary evidence like, charge sheet or judgment rendered in a Criminal Court, against the driver of vehicle against whom the negligence is attributed, then the claimant will not be in a position to elicit any material from the persons from whom the statements are recorded. In most of the cases, the investigating officer would not have witnessed the accident. A person who has not witnessed the accident, is not a direct witness, competent to speak about to the manner of accident. But he can certainly rely on the statements of the persons from whom, he has collected information, provided such person is examined. The documentary evidence can only corroborate a fact, provided oral evidence is adduced. A report is not a public document, like an FIR or charge sheet or a judgment of a Court, which can be marked without examining the author of the document, unless the genuineness of the document is disputed. That is why even in the Criminal Court, when a final report is prepared and filed in Court, the witnesses from whom statements are recorded, are examined so as to enable the accused to cross examine them. The statements recorded, from them are used either to corroborate or contradict. Though, strict rules of evidence is not required in claims cases, but the report of the investigating officer, should be supported by adducing oral evidence, through the persons who have given statements to the investigating officer, about the manner of accident. In the light of the above, mere filing of the report by the Company is not sufficient to defend a claim, as regards the manner of accident. In such view of the matter, it is rightly observed by the Claims Tribunal that Ex.R1 report can only be a self supporting document. 13. In the light of the above, mere filing of the report by the Company is not sufficient to defend a claim, as regards the manner of accident. In such view of the matter, it is rightly observed by the Claims Tribunal that Ex.R1 report can only be a self supporting document. 13. The core contention of the Appellant Insurance company is on Ex.R2-Rough Sketch and that submissions have been advanced, as to the position of the vehicles, after the accident and therefore, the fault ought to have been fixed on the driver of the Tempo Traveller Van. It is also submitted that, because it was a Police Van, negligence has been fixed on the lorry driver. 14. Rough sketch drawn by the police, in a road accident cannot be taken as a conclusive proof, as to the manner of accident, for the reason that, on the main road or on a high way, depending upon the speed, weight of the vehicles involved in the accident, the last minute attempt on the part of the drivers involved in the accident to swerve the vehicles, to avoid any head on collision, the control of the vehicles, on account of the impact or the injuries sustained by the drivers, the position of the vehicles, may change. After the accident, the vehicles cannot always be expected to come to a sudden halt. In a case involving two or more vehicles, after the impact, the vehicles would come to a halt, on account of either the driver losing control over the vehicle or if the driver, not injured seriously, depending upon gravity of the injuries, and still able to control the vehicle, he would stop the vehicle. If both the drivers sustain injuries and not in a position to control, depending upon the factors stated supra, which are illustrative, the vehicles would come to a halt. There may be a possibility a vehicle like a motor cycle, with a lesser weight may even be dragged on in the same direction, in which, a bigger vehicle is operated. Therefore, merely because the Tempo Traveller Van was shown in Ex.R2-Rough Sketch, on the right side of the road, it cannot be concluded that the driver of the van alone was responsible. Therefore, merely because the Tempo Traveller Van was shown in Ex.R2-Rough Sketch, on the right side of the road, it cannot be concluded that the driver of the van alone was responsible. For any one of the reasons mentioned above, the vehicle moving at a greater speed, if not controlled, could even be swayed away in the same or opposite direction. It also depends upon the physical condition of the driver, if he is not badly hurt in the accident and if he had sustained injury, it also depends upon the situs and gravity of injuries. In a given case, if he had sustained a grievous injury in the head, hands or legs or any other parts of the body and not in a position to control the vehicle, naturally, the vehicle has to come to halt, either immediately after the impact or after some time ,when the acceleration comes to an end. In the case on hand, as regards the manner of accident, a Special Inspector of police, under whose supervision, the accused have been escorted, has given a statement and F.I.R. has been lodged on that basis. He has also examined himself as P.W.1, and reiterated the averments in the claim petition. He is one of the witnesses to the accident. On the contra, the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TN 31 A 5599 has not filed any counter complaint attributing rash and negligent driving against the driver of the Government vehicle. No doubt, the vehicle involved was a police vehicle, and therefore, the possibility of lodging an FIR against the driver of the lorry cannot be ruled out. But at the same time, if the lorry driver was not fault, still the owner can always lodge a complaint. It is not necessary that in every case, where there is a involvement of a Government or police vehicle, criminal cases are registered only against the other vehicle, involved in the accident. The contention that the oral testimony of P.W.1 has to be rejected on the ground that it is not supported by any independent witnesses, cannot be countenanced, for the reason, the appellant has not let in any rebuttal evidence. In the light of the discussions, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the Appellant Insurance Company, that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the sketch properly. 15. In the light of the discussions, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the Appellant Insurance Company, that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the sketch properly. 15. The quantum of compensation has been arrived at, on the basis of the details of damages caused to the vehicle which are as follows: Front wind screen glass with frame completely broken, Left side, window Glass completely broken, Front bannet dash board, Radiator, water pump, left side bumper, head light, Indicator left side corner body, mudguard, completely damaged, left side doors with glass with top body completely damaged. Rear left mud guard damaged. Front right side door not seated properly. Left side platform damaged, steering jammed. 16. P.W.2-Mechanic, approved by the Government has assessed the damage of the Government vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,32,500/-Ex.P3 is the quotation. Considering the extent of damages to the vehicle, stated supra, the award cannot be said to be grossly excessive. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the details in the estimation, ought to have been spoken to by the approved mechanic by adducing oral evidence. Mere estimation is not the proof of expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred. But at the same time, when two heavy vehicles collide on a main road, it could be presumed that there would be damage to any one of the vehicles or both, depending upon the weight of the vehicles, the speed in which, they collided and on other factors. Considering the extent of damages suffered by the vehicle, the estimate cannot be said to be on the higher side. 17. Finally on the aspect of interest, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance Company contended that the Claims Tribunal went wrong in awarding interest from the date of claim, till payment, inspite of the fact that the claim petition was dismissed for default for non prosecution and that the respondent is not entitled to interest from the period of dismissal, this Court is of the view that once the order of dismissal for non prosecution is set aside, and the claim petition is restored to file, then, in the normal course, the claimant is entitled to seek for interest from the date of claim, unless the Claims Tribunal has restricted interest, for the interregnum period. But in the case on hand, the delay in seeking to set aside the dismissal is huge, and therefore, the interest during the period from the date of dismissal for non prosecution, till the claim petition is restored to file, is waived. 18. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding of negligence, which has to be decided on the basis of evidence in each case. In every case of head on collision, negligence cannot be fixed on both drivers. A sketch produced by either of the parties, in a claim petition can be taken as one of the evidence, to prove the manner of accident, but that alone is not the conclusive proof. The direction of the vehicle shown in the rough sketch alone cannot be a decisive factor to fix negligence. 19. In the result, the finding of the Claims Tribunal is confirmed in all respects, except the interest portion for the interregnum period stated supra, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. No costs.