JUDGMENT : Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 21-01-2012, passed by the Fast Track Court-I and Addl. MACT, Mysore, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted the claimants, in Appeal No. 2771/12, a compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- along with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, and has further granted the same amount to the claimants in Appeal No. 2772/12. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 17-12-2010, at about 7 p.m., Ravi, the husband of claimant-respondent in Appeal No. 2771/12 and Narayan, the husband of claimant-respondent in Appeal No. 2772/12, were going on a motorbike, bearing Reg. No. KA-45/H-6160 towards the village Doddakatoor from Mysore. While Ravi was riding the motorbike, Narayan was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near Chitravana Resort, a lorry, bearing Reg. No. KA-08/3715, was proceeding in front of them. Ravi tried to overtake the said lorry, but seeing another vehicle coming from the opposite direction, he slowed down his motorbike and tried to turn towards the left side. However, without giving any signal, the driver of the lorry suddenly stopped the lorry. Therefore, the motorbike dashed against the rear of the lorry. Due to the impact, both Ravi and Narayan died on the spot. Since Ravi and Narayan were followed by one Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3), who is also from the same village, immediately Mr. Puttaraju filed a complaint before the concerned jurisdictional police. Since the claimants-respondents lost the bread earners of their respective families, two separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal, namely MVC No. 18/11 and MVC No. 20/11. In order to buttress their case, the claimants-respondents examined three witnesses, and submitted thirteen documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, and submitted two documents. After assessing the evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence these two appeals filed by the Insurance Company. 3. Since the claimants were also aggrieved by the award dated 21-01-2012, they too had filed two appeals before this Court, namely MFA No.10771/12 and MFA No.10772/12. Both these appeals were decided by this Court by order dated 14-08-2013, whereby this Court had enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. Hence these two appeals filed by the Insurance Company. 3. Since the claimants were also aggrieved by the award dated 21-01-2012, they too had filed two appeals before this Court, namely MFA No.10771/12 and MFA No.10772/12. Both these appeals were decided by this Court by order dated 14-08-2013, whereby this Court had enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. Since the Insurance Company was aggrieved by the order dated 14-08-2013, it has filed two review petitions before this Court, namely R.P.No.222/17 and R.P.No.223/17. However, by order dated 15-09-2017, this Court has dismissed the review petitions, both on merit and on the ground of being hit by limitation. 4. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, has strenuously pleaded that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the accident was not caused so much due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, as it was caused due to Ravi’s negligence. Ravi’s negligence is apparent by the fact that he was driving the motorbike in such a high speed that he could not even apply the brakes and prevent the accident from occurring. Moreover, he did not maintain a safe distance between himself and the lorry. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying on the evidence of Mr. Puttaraju (P.W.3). According to the learned counsel, Mr. Puttaraju (P.W.3) is not a trustworthy witness. Despite the fact that he was the complainant who had lodged the FIR, he has changed his version in his testimony, from the version given by him in the complaint. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying on an untrustworthy witness. Thirdly, since the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Mr. Ravi, the Insurance Company, the insurer of the lorry, cannot be saddled with the liability of having to pay the compensation to the claimants. Thus, the impugned award deserves to be set aside by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Seema Kedilaya, the learned counsel for the claimants, has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record. Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3), happens to be the eye-witness of the accident. Even in the complaint filed by him, he had clearly stated that the driver of the lorry, without giving any signal, suddenly stopped the lorry. Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3), happens to be the eye-witness of the accident. Even in the complaint filed by him, he had clearly stated that the driver of the lorry, without giving any signal, suddenly stopped the lorry. Due to the sudden stoppage, Ravi, who was riding his bike behind the lorry, dashed into the back of the lorry. Due to the impact, both Ravi and Narayan died on the spot. The same version has been repeated by him even in his examination-in-chief before the learned Tribunal. The witness was not even shattered in his cross-examination. Merely because he has described the accident in detail in his testimony, he cannot be termed as an untrustworthy witness. Secondly, a FIR is not meant to be encyclopedic in nature. The FIR is required merely to show a prima facie commission of an offence. Its purpose is merely to initiate a criminal investigation. Therefore, according to her, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying upon the testimony of the eye-witness. Thirdly, the testimony of the eye-witness is further strengthened by the investigation carried out by the police. After carrying out a thorough investigation, the police has concluded that the fault lay with the driver of the lorry. Even after the accident, the driver did not stay at the scene of the accident, but ran away. He did not even make an attempt to carry the dead bodies to the nearest hospital. Thus, the intention of the driver is amply clear by his conduct, subsequent to the occurrence of the accident. The conduct of the driver has been noticed by the police in the charge sheet, (Ex.P7). It is only after a thorough investigation that the driver of the lorry was charge sheeted by the police for offence under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the negligence was that of the driver of the lorry, and not of Ravi’s. Lastly, in the order passed by this Court, on 14-08-2013, in the appeals filed by the claimants, mentioned hereinabove, even this Court had opined that the negligence was that of the lorry driver. Therefore, even the present case is covered by the order passed by this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award, and examined the record. Therefore, even the present case is covered by the order passed by this Court in the appeals filed by the claimants. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award, and examined the record. 7. Needless to say, while assessing the evidence, the learned Tribunal is required to critically analyze the evidence available on record. Admittedly in this case, the learned Tribunal had the benefit of having the testimony of an eye-witness and the benefit of having the charge-sheet of the case before it. According to Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3), in the complaint filed by him on 17-12-2010 itself, immediately after the accident, he states as under: “The driver of the said lorry without giving any signal, rashly and negligently stopped the lorry suddenly, at that time my uncle’s son Ravi who was riding his motor bike in front of my motorbike along with Narayan dashed the rear side of the lorry, due to that impact the said Ravi and Narayan the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous head injury and both of them died on the spot”. In his examination-in-chief, the witness states as under: “On the said date (17-12-2010) at about 7 p.m. when I was riding my motorcycle towards my village Doddakottur, near Chitravana Resort, Mysore-H.D. Kote Road, in front of me my villager Ravi S/o. Venkateshaiah was proceeding on a motor bike along with pillion rider Narayan, S/o. Ningaiah in front of my motorcycle. At that time one lorry bearing No. KA-08-3715 was driven by its driver in a zig zag manner. At that time another vehicle came from the opposite side, immediately said Ravi rider of motorbike slowed down and took his motorbike towards left side of the road and went ahead. At that time the driver of the lorry, which was ahead of us suddenly stopped the lorry without giving any signal or without following any traffic rules. Due to the said reason the rider of the another motorbike Ravi, who was going in front of me along with pillion rider, dashed against the rear side of the lorry. They fell down and sustained grievous injuries and both of them died on the spot.” 8. A bare perusal of the complaint and the examination-in-chief, clearly reveals that the witness has stated the exact gist of the story, both in the complaint and in his testimony. They fell down and sustained grievous injuries and both of them died on the spot.” 8. A bare perusal of the complaint and the examination-in-chief, clearly reveals that the witness has stated the exact gist of the story, both in the complaint and in his testimony. Although it is true that in the complaint he claims that Ravi is his uncle’s son, but in his testimony he claims that Ravi is a villager; although it is true that in the testimony he adds certain finer details of the story, states that the lorry came in a zigzag manner, which is absent in the complaint, but nonetheless, a complaint is not meant to be encyclopedic in its detail. The purpose of the complaint is merely to trigger off the criminal machinery to initiate an investigation against an alleged offence committed by a known or unknown person. What is important to note is that the statement of the witness is almost the same with regard to the negligence of the driver of the lorry: the driver suddenly stopped the lorry without giving any signal. Due to the sudden stoppage of the lorry, Ravi, who was riding the bike behind the lorry, dashed against the rear of the lorry, and both Ravi and Narayan died on the spot. Thus, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not justified in claiming that the sole eye-witness has changed his version from the complaint, to his examination-in-chief. Thus, Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3), appears to be a trustworthy witness. Moreover, his evidence has not been shattered in his cross-examination. Hence, there was no reason for the learned Tribunal to doubt the oral evidence of Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3). Therefore, the learned Tribunal. 9. The learned Tribunal has also noted the fact that after a thorough investigation, the police has charge-sheeted the driver of the lorry. In the charge- sheet, (Ex.P7), the police has also noticed that immediately after the accident, instead of helping the injured, who had died on the spot, instead of carrying their bodies to the nearest hospital, the driver of the lorry ran away from the spot. Thus, his immediate running away after the accident, prima facie, reveals his intention to escape any liability for his omission in giving any signal and in preventing the accident. Thus, negligence on part of the driver of the lorry is writ at large. Thus, his immediate running away after the accident, prima facie, reveals his intention to escape any liability for his omission in giving any signal and in preventing the accident. Thus, negligence on part of the driver of the lorry is writ at large. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the negligence lay squarely on the shoulders of the driver of the lorry. Since the Insurance Company is the insurer of the lorry, it is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 10. Since the learned Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company. They are hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal, forthwith, for disbursement to the claimants.