ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for appellant. Shri A.K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle has approached this Court vide present Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 10.11.2014 whereby Rs. 5,41,000/- has been awarded in lieu of death of one Prabhu Singh who died on 25.10.2011 having run over by offending Tractor bearing registration No.MP 15 AA 7192 while exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability on a finding that the offending vehicle was operated contrary to the insurance policy as the deceased was found sitting on the mud-guard of the offending vehicle from where he fell down and run over. 3. Appellant takes exception to findings arrived at by the trial Court on the ground of being contrary to evidence led on behalf of applicant/appellant; wherein, the witnesses have stated in clear terms that the deceased was run over by offending vehicle while he was standing by the side of road. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal committed gross error in placing reliance on FIR rather on the statement of PW-2, an eye witness. 4. The relevant finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal are in paragraphs 12 to 19. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal committed gross error in placing reliance on FIR rather on the statement of PW-2, an eye witness. 4. The relevant finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal are in paragraphs 12 to 19. In paragraphs 18 and 19 the Claims Tribunal found : ^^18- gLrxr~ ekeys esa vkosndx.k us izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ¼izn'kZ ih&1½ dks ml fcUnq rd Lohdkj djus dk iz;kl fd;k gS fd vukosnd dz0&1 ds okgu ls ?kVuk fnukad dks izHkw flag dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gqbZ] fdUrq bl rF; dks Lohdkj djus ls badkj fd;k gS fd izHkw flag mDr VªsDVj ij cSBk FkkA ,slk og ugha dj ldrs ;g rks ml le; gh mUgsa bl fjiksVZ ds laca/k esa ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks f'kdk;r djuh pkfg, Fkh vkSj ,slk u djus ls vkaf'kd :i ls vius ykHk ds fy, vkaf'kd rF; dks Lohdkj vkSj vkaf'kd rF; dks vLohdkj ugha dj ldrs mls nLrkost lEiw.kZ :i ls Lohdkj djuk gksxkA 19- bl izdkj ¼izn'kZ ih&1½ ds nLrkost ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd izHkw flag iz'uxr~ okgu ds eMxkMZ ij cSBdj tk jgk Fkk vkSj mlls gh fxjus ls mldh e`R;q gqbZA vkosndx.k vkSj vukosndx.k dz0&1 o 2 dk ;g dgha vfHkopu ugha gS fd izHkw flag vukosnd dz0&2 dk MªkbZoj ;k Dyhuj ;k daMDVj gSA blls Li"V gS fd izHkw flag ds okgu ij cSBus ds laca/k esa dksbZ vfrfjDr izhfe;e chek dEiuh dks vukosnd dz0&2 }kjk vnk ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlus okgu ij lokjh ds :i esa izHkw flag dks cSBk;k gS tks fd Li"V :i ls chek ikWfylh ds 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gS vkSj izhfe;e ds vHkko esa vukosnd dz0&3 iw.kZ :i ls nkf;Ro ls mUeksfpr gksuk ik;h tkrh gSA** 5. That the FIR, reliance whereof has been placed by the Claims Tribunal was lodged by PW-2 namely Bheem Singh. This fact has not been denied by the appellant. That the FIR, reliance whereof has been placed by the Claims Tribunal was lodged by PW-2 namely Bheem Singh. This fact has not been denied by the appellant. It is also not denied that Bheem Singh was an eye witness and immediately when the accident occurred he had lodged the FIR with the police wherein it is stated : ^^eSa [ksrh djrk gwaA vkt fnukad 25-10-2011 dks 'kke djhc 5 cts eSa viuh eksVj lkbZfdy ls firkth ds lkFk nsojh vk jgk FkkA tSls gh ge yksx chuk frxM~Mk jtkSyk iSVªksy iai ds ikl vk;sA mlh le; nsojh rjQ ls esjs xkao ds fnyhi flag jktiwr dk gjs jax dk VªsDVj fnyhi flag dk HkkbZ ccyw flag VªsDVj dks rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh iwoZd pykrk vk jgk Fkk VªsDVj ij eMxkMZ ij esjs cM+s firkth izHkq flag jktiwr ifjgkj ,oa iMjgh dk jktw Bkdqj cSBs FksA iSVªksy iai frxM~Mk ds ikl ,dne esjs cM+s firkth izHkw flag fxj x;s Åij ls VªsDVj fudy x;k tks xEHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks x;sA ccyw VªsDVj ysdj xkao rjQ Hkkx x;kA eSaus vkSj firkth us mUgsa mBk;kA VªsDVj dk uEcj ugha ns[k ik;kA izHkw flag dks eksVj lkbZfdy ls ljdkjh vLirky nsojh bykt djkus yk;sA MkW0 us bykt djds ftyk vLirky lkxj fjQj dj fn;kA ge yksx thi ls lkxj ys tk jgs FksA izHkw flag jkLrk esa [kRe gks x;s rks yksVkdj okfil nsojh ys vk;s vLirky dh rjQ thi esa yk'k j[kh gSA fjiksVZ djus vk;k gwaA dk;Z0 dh tkosA fjiksVZ i<+dj ns[kh dgs vuqlkj fy[kh gSA** 6. It is observed that while entering in witness box he gave a different version that the deceased was standing by the road side, however, this witness does not dispute of having lodged the FIR. Though it is contended by learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal committed gross error in solely relying on the FIR, however, taking into consideration that the FIR was lodged within a close proximity of the accident having taken place and as witnessed by PW-2 Bheem Singh, the Tribunal is justified in relying upon the same rather a distorted version by him when he entered into the witness box. 7. In this context reference can be had of a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla (2007) 3 MPHT 225; wherein, their Lordships were pleased to hold : "13. 7. In this context reference can be had of a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla (2007) 3 MPHT 225; wherein, their Lordships were pleased to hold : "13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise. 15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. In Hukam Singh (supra), the law was correctly been laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court stating; "8. Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ram Partap had produced only his former deposition and gave no evidence in Court which could be considered by the Additional District Judge. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. The Trial Court had discussed the evidence of Ram Partap in the light of the report Exhibit D.1 produced by him. The Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal could have commented on that evidence and held it to be inadmissible if law so permitted. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. The Trial Court had discussed the evidence of Ram Partap in the light of the report Exhibit D.1 produced by him. The Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal could have commented on that evidence and held it to be inadmissible if law so permitted. But he did not at all have this evidence before his mind. It was not a case of inadmissible evidence either. No doubt the procedure adopted by the trial Court in letting in a certified copy of the previous deposition of Ram Partap made in the criminal proceedings and allowing the same to be proved by Ram Partap himself was not correct and he should have been examined again in regard to all that he had stated earlier in the statement the parties in order to save time did not object to the previous deposition being proved by Ram Partap himself who was only cross examined. It is not a case where irrelevant evidence had been let in with the consent of the parties but the only objection is that the procedure followed in the matter of giving evidence in Court was not correct. When the parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge later either in the same Court or in a court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible. To allow them to do so would indeed be permitting them both to appropriate and reprobate." 16. " 8. In view whereof no indulgence is caused in respect of the conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being operated in breach of insurance policy. 9. In the result, Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.