JUDGMENT : Though the case is posted for hearing with regard to the interlocutory application, with the consent of both the counsels the matter is heard on merits. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the claimants before the accident claims tribunal at Raichur, who have made a claim petition against the respondents therein claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,50,000/-due to the untimely death of the husband of the first claimant by name Pampanna who died in a motor vehicle accident. There is no dispute between the parties that on 15.03.2016 the deceased Pampanna Askihal along with one Gururaj were returning back to Raichur from Jawalgera and they were also transporting agricultural equipment in a said tractor. An accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor by its driver which was also fitted with a trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-36/TB-9345 and due to the impact of the injuries sustained by him the said Pampanna died on the spot. A case was registered against the driver of the tractor by the competent police and a charge sheet has also been laid against him. The claimants have claimed compensation against the respondents therein on the various aspects including the total quantum of compensation to be awarded to them. The respondents have appeared and particularly the respondent No.3 therein the Oriental Insurance Company has contested the proceedings on various contentions. The trial Court has framed the following issues on the basis of the contentions raised by the respective parties, which are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 15.03.2016 accident was due to rash & negligent by the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA36/T7366 & trolley bearing No.KA36/TB9345 while deceased Pampanna was sitting in the trolley along with agricultural equipments on Jawalagera-Raichur road near Kallur village in Manvi on main road, he lost control over the vehicle as a result it is turtle and Pampanna sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to injuries on the spot? (2) Whether the respondent No.3 insurance company proves that respondent No.1 being the driver of the tractor & trolley on the date of accident was not holding valid & effective driving license to drive such category of vehicle as such insurance company is not liable to pay compensation? (3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from whom? (4) What order or award? 3. (3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from whom? (4) What order or award? 3. The claimant examined herself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2 and also got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13. On the side of the respondents, respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW-1 and respondent No.3 – Insurance Company examined one witness as RW-2 and they also got marked Exs.R1 to R5. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative and allowed the claim petition partly by awarding a compensation of Rs.44,77,956/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by fastening the liability on the Insurance Company that is respondent No.3 (appellant herein). 4. The claimants being satisfied with the award, did not come up before this Court for any enhancement. However, the Insurance Company being aggrieved, preferred this appeal before this Court on various grounds. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal has taken various contentions which are enumerated below: (a) Firstly, he submitted before this Court that the tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company even though there is proof on the documents produced by the claimants themselves that the deceased Pampanna was travelling on the tractor by sharing the seat of the driver and not travelling in the trolley as a carrier of any goods or any agricultural equipments. Therefore, when he was sitting on the tractor itself sharing the seat of the driver there was no coverage of the insurance so far as the person who travels sitting on the tractor. Therefore, the fastening of the liability on the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is bad in law. (b) Secondly, the learned counsel elaborated his arguments contending that on compassionate ground the first claimant was given with an appointment in lieu of the death of deceased Pampanna. Therefore, she is not entitled for the compensation as granted by the Tribunal. The deduction to the extent of the benefit out of that compassionate appointment ought to have been made by the Tribunal. Therefore, she is not entitled for the compensation as granted by the Tribunal. The deduction to the extent of the benefit out of that compassionate appointment ought to have been made by the Tribunal. He further contended that the Tribunal ignoring the above said benefit taken by the claimant on the basis of the compassionate appointment inspite of that awarded future prospects which is also bad in law. 6. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside so far as the appellant is concerned and the liability has to be fastened on the owner of the said tractor and also he contended that, the quantum of compensation has to be modified deducting the future prospects awarded by the tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Court cannot bifurcate the contents of the criminal Court records like FIR and charge sheet in order to ascertain whether the deceased was travelling on the tractor or the trolley. The entire materials have to be understood in proper perspective so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the Tribunal has committed any error in holding that, the deceased was travelling on the tractor trolley. He also contended that the grant of compensation so far as quantum is concerned, the compassionate appointment was granted only under the scheme. If the claimant No.1 works then only she is entitled for salary and other benefits. Therefore, it virtually amounts to grant of the salary for the work done by a particular person not as a benefit or compensation in lieu of the death of the deceased. Therefore, whatever the compensation claimants are entitled to due to the death of the deceased irrespective of the compassionate appointment has to be granted and accordingly the Tribunal has granted the same. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the wake of the above said arguments, we would like to take up the above said grounds raised by the learned counsel one by one. 9. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the wake of the above said arguments, we would like to take up the above said grounds raised by the learned counsel one by one. 9. So far as the first ground is concerned, the learned counsel has relied upon a ruling reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla and others the Apex Court has observed that: “Contents of a document are not automatically proved only because the same is marked as an exhibit. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the FIR. In the claim petition itself a reference was made to the lodging of the FIR. Therefore, once a part of the contents of a document viz. the FIR, 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. Therefore, once a part of the FIR was relied upon by both the parties, the Tribunal could not be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part of the same document, irrespective of whether the contents of the document have been proved or not. If the contents have been proved by admission, 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.” 10. The above said principle is in fact favourable to the claimants in this case. The Court has to consider that when a particular document is placed before the Court, the Court has to go through the entirety of the document and it should not bifurcate parts of the document and rely upon one portion of the document and reject other portion. However, it is clear from the above said decision that on reading of the entire document the Court has to formulate its opinion after relying upon the entire contents of the document. However, it is clear from the above said decision that on reading of the entire document the Court has to formulate its opinion after relying upon the entire contents of the document. It is worth to refer another ruling reported in 2012 ACJ 2297 in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Shoba and others the Division Bench of this Court has observed that: “Motor insurance Tractor – Passenger risk Liability of insurance company – Death of an employee travelling on tractor when tractor met with accident – Tribunal fastened liability on the insurance company – Insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that policy does not cover the risk of an employee who is travelling on the tractor and only the risk of the driver is covered.” Therefore, the Court has held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in the event it is established before the Court that the deceased was travelling on the tractor but not in the trolley. 11. Bearing in mind the above said decisions, we are of the opinion that when once some documents are placed before the Court, such documents have to be analyzed and accepted on the basis of the legal norms. The documents have to be appreciated in accordance with the procedure known to law. In this background it is well known principle of law that once the charge sheet is filed, the first information report virtually merges with the charge sheet. Of course, for the purpose of admission and for the purpose of relying the contents of the said document, the whole of the document along with the other documents filed in the charge sheet have to be taken into consideration by the Court in order to arrive at a conclusion what exactly the case projected and sought to be proved before the Court. In this particular case, there are various documents produced before the Court like first information report, spot mahazar as well as the charge sheet. Of course first information report was filed by none other than the claimant No.1 who was examined as PW-1. In her evidence the said document was marked as Ex.P-1. In this particular case, there are various documents produced before the Court like first information report, spot mahazar as well as the charge sheet. Of course first information report was filed by none other than the claimant No.1 who was examined as PW-1. In her evidence the said document was marked as Ex.P-1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the FIR as well as Ex.P-2 which is the certified copy of the spot panchanama are read in proper perspective, they disclose that, the deceased was travelling on the tractor itself not in the trailer of the said tractor. Though the learned counsel submitted that subsequently the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police particularly the version of the eye witness shown that he has stated that the deceased Pampanna was travelling on the tractor with the driver, but during the course of evidence who was examined as PW-2 he resiled from the said statement and gave the evidence before the Court that the said Pampanna was travelling in the trailer and not on the tractor. 12. Bearing in mind the above said evidence before the Court, now we will examine these two documents Exs.P-1 and P-2 and thereafter refer the evidence of PW-2. We have carefully perused the first information report Ex-P-1 which was lodged by PW-1. In the said document of course it is stated that she was not an eye witness to the incident, but she received the information from PW-2 that on the date of the accident the deceased was travelling on the tractor along with the driver and the tractor met with an accident and due to that the deceased died. In this particular document the rest of the document also clearly discloses that the tractor after capsized, the trailer was cut out and detached from the said tractor engine and it went away from the spot to a distance of 200 feet and capsized and in fact Pampanna’s dead body was found near the trolley, the engine was away from that particular spot. For all practical purposes, though this FIR could be treated as the document filed by PW-1 but she was not an eye witness to the incident. She received the information about the incident from PW-2 and she has narrated the same in the FIR. For all practical purposes, though this FIR could be treated as the document filed by PW-1 but she was not an eye witness to the incident. She received the information about the incident from PW-2 and she has narrated the same in the FIR. Therefore, the contents of the document when eye witnesses are there to the incident could only be taken as a proof for the fact that it set the criminal law into motion. Even considering this document, there are two versions in the document as per the information given by the eye witness to PW-1, that is, the deceased was travelling on the tractor and after the accident, the dead body was found near the trolley though it was lying away from the tractor engine. In this background Ex.P-2, if it is seen, at para-5 of Ex.P-2, in the spot mahazar it is stated that Pampanna was travelling in the tractor but it is not specifically stated whether it was actually on the trailer or on the tractor because tractor and trailer were moving together at the time of the accident. While describing the spot at para-8 of the spot mahazar again it is stated that after the accident the tractor engine was thrown to a distance of 200 feet and there was a distance between the trailer and the tractor about 200 feet and Pampanna the deceased was lying underneath the trailer and he died on the spot. The charge sheet in its entirety discloses that the police have filed the charge sheet specifically narrating the factual aspects that the deceased was travelling in the trolley and due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor by its driver, it capsized and Pampanna died on the spot while travelling on the trolley. Therefore, at the time of filing of the charge sheet, though there are some discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses as well as the first information report, ultimately the Investigating Officer has concluded that the deceased was travelling on the trolley and died due to the accident. Therefore, when several versions are available in the entire documents the Court cannot make a piecemeal. The whole of the documents are to be taken into consideration. Therefore, when several versions are available in the entire documents the Court cannot make a piecemeal. The whole of the documents are to be taken into consideration. If it is taken as we have stated that FIR merges with the charge sheet in such an eventuality the substantive evidence placed before the Court has to be taken into consideration. PW-1 in her evidence in fact has reiterated what information she received from the eye witness. She has categorically stated that her husband was travelling in the trailer of the said tractor which met with an accident. Of course in the course of cross examination it is suggested that she has given Ex.P-1 and she has stated that her husband was travelling on the tractor. The said suggestion was denied by her. But fact remains that she was not the eye witness she only received the information from PW-2. 13. In this background the evidence of PW-2 play a dominant role in this case. PW-2 Sri Narasimha who is an eye witness to the incident has categorically stated that, on that particular day the respondent No.1 was driving the tractor and trailer and Pampanna was sitting in trolley of the tractor along with the equipments. He was driving another tractor which was proceeding behind the tractor which met with the accident. When the tractor reached near Kallur village the said tractor in which Pampanna was travelling met with an accident as the tractor turtled and trolley was detached from the tractor and due to that Pampanna sustained grievous injuries and died. In the course of cross examination it is suggested to him that he is deposing falsehood before the Court as to the effect that Pampanna was travelling in trolley. 14. It is the argument of the learned counsel that in 161 statement made before the police PW-2 has stated that Pampanna was travelling in the tractor but the said factum was denied by PW-2, the said 161 statement was not placed before the Court for consideration. 14. It is the argument of the learned counsel that in 161 statement made before the police PW-2 has stated that Pampanna was travelling in the tractor but the said factum was denied by PW-2, the said 161 statement was not placed before the Court for consideration. Be that as it may, even if it is considered that in the 161 statement the said person has said so, such document has to be produced before the Court and the same ought to have been confronted to the witness as contemplated under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and the contents of 161 statement should have been brought to the notice of the witness and thereafter the truthness of the contents of the said document ought to have been tested by examining the Investigating Officer who recorded the statement confronting the said portion of the statement made to ascertain whether the said witness has stated so before the Investigating Officer, otherwise it only becomes a contradiction which is not proved in accordance with law. When such a procedure has not been adopted by respondent No.3 to prove that this witness has resiled from his earlier statement, in such an eventuality the substantive evidence placed before the Court becomes reliable by the Court. 15. Therefore, applying the above said principles, whatever stated in the examination in chief by this witness has to be accepted which is also fully corroborated by the contents of the FIR and the spot panchanama. Therefore, we absolutely do not find any mistake committed by the Tribunal in accepting the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the trailer of the said tractor and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 16. So far as second ground is concerned, with reference to the quantum, it is the main contention that claimant No.1, that is, respondent No.1 was given with a compassionate appointment. Therefore, she is not entitled for future prospects as awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal has taken into consideration the salary of the deceased and rightly awarded compensation for the loss of future income to the family. Therefore, she is not entitled for future prospects as awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal has taken into consideration the salary of the deceased and rightly awarded compensation for the loss of future income to the family. In this context the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2008 ACJ 2372 in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal and others, wherein the Apex Court dealing with the quantum in respect of a fatal accident has laid down certain principles which are as follows: “Principles of assessment Employment on compassionate grounds Deceased was survived by his widow and three children – Employer of the deceased provided employment to his widow on compassionate grounds and she was getting Rs.4,700 p.m. and residence was also provided to her – Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.8,48,106 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum – High Court upheld the award – Appeal before Apex Court contending that benefits which the claimant has received on account of death have to be deducted while computing compensation – Whether the benefits which the claimant received on account of death have to be duly considered while fixing compensation – Held: yes; compensation reduced to Rs.5,00,000/in full and final settlement of the claim.” 17. The learned counsel for the respondents, in this context, relied upon a latest ruling reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others wherein the Apex Court dealing with the similar point as to whether the compassionate appointment if it is given the salary and the emoluments acquired due to that compassionate appointment requires to be deducted while awarding compensation. The Court has observed in the following manner: “Compassionate appointment can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependants, one of the dependants may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependants may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as "“pecuniary advantage” that comes under the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.” 18. A plain reading of the above said two decisions which are of the same strength of the Benches it is clear that the latest decision of the Supreme Court of the year 2013 which clarifies the situation the compassionate appointment was only given in the harness of the family for the purpose of sustaining that particular family. Therefore, no deduction could be made while determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 19. Apart from the above, though in a particular scheme the compassionate appointment was given, it is virtually a work done compensation to the employees. If the claimant do not work he will not fetch any salary or any emoluments. Therefore, it is for the purpose of sustaining of the family such appointment was given and that amount will only enure to the benefit of the family if the claimant works for the salary. The said salary or any other benefits cannot be in any stretch of imagination be considered as a compensation or benefit, but it is only a work done compliment to said person. Therefore, in our opinion also, while computing the compensation the salary and other emoluments which the claimant was entitled to as a matter of right once an appointment was given to her, cannot be deducted while computing the compensation. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, so far as the future prospects are concerned, the same should not have been awarded by the Tribunal. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, so far as the future prospects are concerned, the same should not have been awarded by the Tribunal. When once it is stated that whatever may be the salary or other emoluments the claimant is entitled to, it is only attached to the work entrusted to her and it virtually amounts to a work done compensation to her by way of salary and other emoluments. Therefore, even for any practical purposes the said amount received by the claimant is only with reference to her doing of the work and not with reference to the earnings of the deceased. Once we hold that for any practical purposes the compassionate appointment should not be taken into consideration, virtually the Court cannot take into consideration while computation of the compensation the benefits that is acquired by claimant on the basis of the compassionate appointment. Therefore, the Court has to compute the compensation strictly with reference to the earnings of the deceased and what was his income and what was his future income he would have earned if he was alive and the said computation has to be done in accordance with law. Therefore, the awarding of future prospects by the Tribunal also, in our opinion, is not bad in law. 21. On the above said observation, we absolutely find no mistake in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the claimants though the Tribunal has not discussed the above said factors in detail therefore, it made us to venture upon to discuss the above said factual aspects and legal aspects in detail to arrive at the above said conclusion. Therefore, with the above said reasons we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed. The amount which is deposited before this Court by the Insurance Company is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement of the same according to the award passed by the Tribunal.