Judgment : Short facts leading to the appeals are as follows: On 30.10.2010, about 11.30 Hours, on Tiruvannamalai to Chengam Road, near Eraiyur Kootu Road, opposite to Sottaiyan Gounder land, there was a collision between a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1726 and a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.KA 40 F 136, in which, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, died. A case in Cr.No.255 of 2010, has been registered against the driver of the bus, for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC., on the file of the Pachal Police Station. In the accident, two persons died and eight were injured. Alleging that the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.KA 40 F 136, was negligent, in causing the accident, several claim petitions have been filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tiruvannamalai. 2. In all the claim petitions, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, was the 1st respondent and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division, was the 2nd respondent. Opposing the claim petitions, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation submitted that when the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, which came in the opposite direction, attempted to overtake a lorry, the driver of the Karnataka State Transport Corporation, honked the horn. But due to rash and negligent driving, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus tyre got burst and unable to control the same, it dashed against the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and thus, the accident occurred. 3. It is the contention of the Managing Director, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore that though the accident occurred, due to the negligence of the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. In the abovesaid circumstances, the Corporation has prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 4. Per contra, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division, has submitted that the bus, bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1726, owned by them, was driven cautiously, by adhering to the rules and after boarding passengers at Eraiyur bus stop, the bus proceeded. 4. Per contra, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division, has submitted that the bus, bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1726, owned by them, was driven cautiously, by adhering to the rules and after boarding passengers at Eraiyur bus stop, the bus proceeded. At a distance of 400 yards, the driver of the bus, after seeing a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.KA 40 F 136, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without any control, stopped the bus, on the left side corner of the road, but the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, dashed against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus and hence, he submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division, has further submitted that FIR has been registered only against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport bus. 5. Before the Claims Tribunal, claimants examined themselves as Pws.1 to 13 and marked 24 documents. PW.14 is the Doctor, who examined the injuries, with reference to the medical records. RW.1 is the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and on his behalf, a Rough Sketch has been marked as Ex.R2. RW.2 is the Deputy Manager of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. RW.3 is the Head Constable, examined on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. Ex.R1 is the Final Report, marked on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. 6. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that both the drivers of the buses were equally negligent in causing the accident and accordingly, determined the quantum of compensation. 7. Being aggrieved by the finding, fixing negligence in equal proportion, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Limited, has filed C.M.A.Nos.2427 to 2432 of 2013. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division, has filed C.M.A.No.1788 to 1739 of 2014. Both the appeals filed by the respective Corporations are against the judgments and decrees in M.C.O.P.Nos.318 to 332 of 2011, dated 29.01.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tiruvannamalai. 8. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division, has filed C.M.A.No.1788 to 1739 of 2014. Both the appeals filed by the respective Corporations are against the judgments and decrees in M.C.O.P.Nos.318 to 332 of 2011, dated 29.01.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tiruvannamalai. 8. In the appeals filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Limited, it is contended that the accident occurred solely, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1726. In the appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, negligence is attributed against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. In both the appeals, the Corporations have not challenged the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the only challenge pertains to the finding of negligence. 9. Assailing the correctness of the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, submitted that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider that the defacto complainant, Mr. Venkatachalapathy, who has lodged the complaint, marked as Ex.P1, has not been examined. He further submitted that when the defacto complainant in his complaint to the Police, had stated that he heard a noise, at the time of accident, it only proves that the front tyre of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, got burst and unable to control the bus, its driver dashed against the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. 10. Learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation further contended that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider Ex.R2 -Rough Sketch, marked by them, in proper perspective, which indicates the place of accident. He further added that when the claimants have failed to examine any other independent witness, nor filed any report, the Claims Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that both the vehicles were operated in the middle of the road, at the time of accident. 11. Learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reiterated that the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus crossed the center line, after the tyre got burst and due to the same, the vehicle was dragged on, to the right side of the road and unable to control, the collision occurred. 11. Learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reiterated that the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus crossed the center line, after the tyre got burst and due to the same, the vehicle was dragged on, to the right side of the road and unable to control, the collision occurred. To support the contention of tyre burst, he relied on the newspaper report and photographs, enclosed in the typed set of papers. 12. Per contra, Mr. Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation submitted that when Ex.P1 – FIR, has been registered against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, in Cr.No.255/10, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 308-A IPC, on the file of Pachal Police Station and when there are clear averments, in all the claim petitions, attributing negligence, against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, instead of apportioning the same equally, the Claims Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligence on the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. 13. Learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation submitted that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the oral testimony of RW.3, Head Constable, examined on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division in proper perspective. According to him, the Claims Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record and the probabilities of the case, has erred in fixing negligence on both the drivers. He pointed out that the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, died. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. Though in all the appeals, the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured have been impleaded as respondents, considering the only challenge, inter-se between the Corporations, this Court is of the view that there is no need to issue notices to them. The quantum of compensation is not disputed in all the appeals. 15. Though in all the appeals, the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured have been impleaded as respondents, considering the only challenge, inter-se between the Corporations, this Court is of the view that there is no need to issue notices to them. The quantum of compensation is not disputed in all the appeals. Adverting to the rival submissions, from the material on record, it could be seen that in all the claim petitions, it is the uniform stand of the claimants/legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be, that on 30.10.2010, about 11.30 Hours, when the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1726, was proceeding from Tiruvannamalai to Chengam Road, near Eraiyur Kootu Road, opposite to Sottaiyan Gounder land, a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.KA 40 F 136, which came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus. 16. On the contra, it is the case of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation that the front tyre of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1726, got burst and the said vehicle dragged on, to the right side of the road and it collided with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. 17. Though Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, relied on the newspaper report, enclosed in the typed set of papers, to support his contention that the two vehicles collided, due to tyre burst, this Court is not inclined to give any credence, to Newspaper Reports. The question of admissibility of the newspaper reports came up for consideration in Samant N.Balkrishna and another v. George Fernandez and others reported in 1969 3 SCC 238 , at paragraph 26, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows : "A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." 18. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." 18. The Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319 , opined thus: "...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein." 19. In Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kants reported in 1994 (1) SCC 452, the question as to whether mere production of a copy of the newspaper, be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item) contained therein, came up for consideration. The Apex Court in Paragraph 48 of the judgment held as follows: "Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publications of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent." 20. Ex.P1 – FIR, has been registered against RW.1, Vasantha Kumar, driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. In the accident, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, died. Though in all the petitions, the claimants have averred that the accident occurred, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, in the cross-examination, they have uniformly deposed that there was a head-on-collision and both the Transport Corporations are liable to pay compensation. The Claims Tribunal has recorded that except the legal representatives of the deceased/injured, no independent witness has been examined. Ex.R1, is the Final Report, by the Police, which is against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. The Claims Tribunal has recorded that except the legal representatives of the deceased/injured, no independent witness has been examined. Ex.R1, is the Final Report, by the Police, which is against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus. Upon perusal of Ex.R2, Rough Sketch, submitted by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the Claims Tribunal has observed that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. 21. Both the Transport Corporations have sought for reversal of the finding, fixing on their drivers. The Claims Tribunal, on cumulative assessment of evidence adduced, held that the accident occurred, due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. Though the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has contended that due to the tyre burst, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Bus, was dragged on, to the right side of the road and thus, unable to control the same, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus driver dashed against the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, the same has not been proved. 22. Perusal of the common award, does not indicate that the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, has taken any steps to summon the Motor Vehicles Inspector or mark his Report, pertaining to both the vehicles and adduced evidence, as to whether, there was a mechnical default or really, the front tyre of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, was burst or not. It is well known that the one, who has propounded a fact, as a defence, has to prove the same. 23. Merely because the defacto complainant has stated that he heard a noise, at the time of accident, that would alone, is not sufficient to conclude that the accident occurred due to tyre burst. Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, pertaining to the abovesaid vehicles, are the best evidence to speak about any mechanical default. Admittedly, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has not taken any steps to examine the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector, or summon the reports. 24. Mere pleading in the counter affidavit by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Limited, cannot be treated as proof, as to the manner of accident. Yet another fact to be considered in this case, as to whether, the finding fixing negligence on both the drivers, could be said as arbitrary or without any basis, it could be seen from the award that before the Claims Tribunal, Mr. Yet another fact to be considered in this case, as to whether, the finding fixing negligence on both the drivers, could be said as arbitrary or without any basis, it could be seen from the award that before the Claims Tribunal, Mr. A.S. Shaubudeen, learned counsel, who appeared for the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, has submitted that as the accident had occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of the buses, by the respective drivers, both the Corporations have to be held jointly liable to pay the compensation. The submission of the learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, extracted at Paragraph 25 of the common impugned judgment, is reproduced hereunder: “25 “Tamil” 25. It is well known that the Advocate, acts as an agent of his client. When the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, through its counsel, before the Claims Tribunal, has admitted that as both the drivers were negligent in causing the accident and consequently, both the Corporations are to be held jointly liable to pay compensation to the victims and added to the fact that when Ex.P1 – FIR, has been registered against the driver of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ex.P3 – Final Report has been laid against him, it cannot be said that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence, in proper perspective. 26. Merely because, a 3rd party has lodged a FIR, stating that the tyre got burst, it cannot said that whatever is stated in the FIR, as a fact proved. 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 on the FIR, 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." 27. 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. The statements before the Tribunal are made on solemn affirmation, whereas the FIR is never lodged on solemn affirmation." 27. 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, who has actually caused the accident, even though, a complaint may not be made against him. FIR is a public document. It sets the criminal law in motion. Non examination of the author of the complaint is not fatal to the claim. Thus, the contents of the FIR are always open to scrutiny by the Courts/Tribunals and it can be used for corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witnesses, regarding the manner of accident. Therefore, the contents of 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 same, along with the oral and other documentary evidence, adduced. 28. Sketch is a piece of evidence, which may be, used as evidence, to analyse the overall evidence adduced by the parties, in arriving at the conclusion of negligence. But that alone cannot be taken as the substantive evidence to prove negligence. As regards credence to sketch, this Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. District Superintendent of Police, Vellore reported in 2012 AAC 2451 (Mad.), held as follows: "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. 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." 29. In view of the above discussion and decisions and the categorical admission by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, before the Claims Tribunal, as stated supra, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding, fixing negligence in equal proportion against both the drivers of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus. 30. In the result, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.