JUDGMENT : C. M. Joshi, J. These appeals are directed against the common judgment in MVC Nos.509/2006, 510/2006, 511/2006 & 512/2006 dated 01.10.2010 passed by the leaned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Ranebennur (for short "the Tribunal"). The appellant insurance company was arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal in all these cases. 2. By consent of both the parties, these matters are taken up for final disposal though they were slated for admission. 3. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioners approached the Tribunal contending that on 20.12.2005 at about 1.15 p.m., they were going in a tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-27/6321 from Ranebennur to Haveri as authorized passengers and the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and near the cattle market, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-1434 came from Byadagi towards Ranebennur on extreme left side of the road and the driver of the tempo trax dashed to the said KSRTC bus and then the KSRTC bus dashed to the tanker lorry bearing registration No.27/V-2587 and caused the accident. Due to the collision, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to General Hospital, Haveri for treatment. The petitioners also took treatment in private hospitals and had to spend Rs.25,000/- each towards treatment and still they need another Rs.25,000/- for follow-up treatment. It was contended that the petitioners were the only earning members of the family and they were working at S.R.Company and due to the accident, they sustained permanent disability and they are entitled for the compensation as claimed in the petition. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo trax and hence, respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the said tempo trax are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 who was the owner of the tempo trax did not appear before the Tribunal and therefore, was placed ex-parte. 5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 who was the owner of the tempo trax did not appear before the Tribunal and therefore, was placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed objections contending that the owner and insurer of the KSRTC bus as well as tanker lorry are also necessary parties to the petition and that the driver of the tempo trax was not having a valid and effective driving licence and PSV Badge as on the date of the accident is admitted. Inter-alia it was also contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable under law and they denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioners. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, similar necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal in all the cases and common evidence was recorded. The petitioners examined themselves as PW1 to PW4 and marked Exs.P1 to P20. The doctor, who assessed the disability of these petitioners, though was common, his affidavits were separately filed in each petition and therefore, the Tribunal treated him as PW5 to PW8. The respondent No.2-insurance company examined its official as RW1 and examined two medical officers of Ranebennur Govt Hospital as RW2 and RW3 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked on their behalf. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal awarded an identical sum of Rs.1,84,600/- each in all the cases directing the respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the same. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent No.2-insurance company has approached this Court in appeals. 8. It is contended by the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal has ignored that there was manipulation of the charge-sheet in respect of the person who was driving the vehicle. It is contrary to the contents of the FIR and the complaint. It is contended that the respondent No.1-owner of the tempo trax in collusion with the petitioners and police got manipulated the charge-sheet by implicating one Shanmukh as driver of the tempo trax, contrary to the FIR and the complaint where the name of one Niranjan is mentioned. It is contended that the Tribunal also committed an error in holding that Shanmukh was driving the offending tempo trax and since the said Niranjan was not holding a driving licence, the name of Shanmukh was inserted as driver at a later stage of the investigation. It is contended that the Tribunal also committed an error in holding that Shanmukh was driving the offending tempo trax and since the said Niranjan was not holding a driving licence, the name of Shanmukh was inserted as driver at a later stage of the investigation. It is submitted that the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Prem Latha Shukla and others, 2007 ACJ 1928 has not been considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Further, the appellant has also assailed the correctness of the assessment of disability and thereby also challenged the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, it is contended that the claim of the petitioners is bereft of the support of the MLC records and also that the case sheet of the District Hospital, Haveri having not been produced, the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is also not proper. 9. On issuance of the notice by this Court, the petitioners who are arrayed as respondents in these appeals have appeared before the Court through their counsel. The owner of the tempo trax has not appeared despite service of notice. The Trial Court records have been secured. Heard the arguments by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in all these appeals. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the FIR initially mentioned the name of one Niranjan to be the driver of the tempo trax but later the name of the driver of the tempo trax is shown as Shanmukh. Therefore, he contends that the name of the driver of the tempo trax has been manipulated subsequently by these petitioners in collusion with the owner of the tempo trax and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 11. The second prong of the argument by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the MLC extract of the government hospital, Ranebennur shows that the injuries were simple in nature but later after four days of the accident, the petitioners got admitted themselves to the District Hospital, Haveri where it is shown that all these petitioners had sustained exactly similar injuries. He also points out that all the disabilities contended by these petitioners are also identical and even the award passed by the Tribunal is also identical. It is contended that the cross-examination and other evidence available on record clearly indicate that though the petitioners were treated for simple injuries and they went to their villages and after four days they went to District Government Hospital, Haveri where they allegedly got admitted and on investigation it was found that they had sustained grievous injuries is unbelievable and therefore, the petitioners have manipulated the documents in order to make unlawful gain. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable on two grounds. He contends that the FIR only sets the criminal law into motion and it is the charge-sheet, which is relevant. The second contention is that it was only after the petitioners felt pain and difficulties, they got admitted to the hospital at Haveri and the investigation showed that they had sustained grievous injuries like fractures. Therefore, he defends the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The submissions by both the sides poses a question as to whether the charge sheet which is resultant effect of the investigation has to be given credence or whether it is the FIR which gets precedence over the charge sheet before the Tribunal. It is relevant to note that the Court has to consider the evidence that can be deduced from all the documents which are placed before it. It cannot restrict to a fact mentioned in a particular document in order to base its decision. The investigating officer in discharge of his statutory duties investigated the matter and found that it was the driver of the tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-27/6321 i.e. Shanmukha, who caused the accident. In other words, the FIR was instrumental in setting criminal law in motion and investigating officer found that it was the tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-27/6321 which caused the accident but not the KSRTC or the tanker lorry. In that view of the matter, it is the vehicle and name of the driver which is mentioned in the charge sheet gains much credence but not one which is mentioned in the FIR. 14. In that view of the matter, it is the vehicle and name of the driver which is mentioned in the charge sheet gains much credence but not one which is mentioned in the FIR. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlatha Shukla and others, (2007) 13 SCC 476. In this decision it was held that the proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is sine-qua-non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The factual matrix in the said case was that a tempo trax and a truck had collided and petition was filed by an inmate of the tempo trax. The registration number of the truck could not be traced out but the FIR unequivocally mentioned that it was a truck driver who was negligent in causing the accident. There was no allegation made against the tempo trax driver in which the claimant was traveling. When the compensation was claimed against the owner and insurer of the tempo trax, though the police papers showed that the truck was negligent, the Apex Court held that when the negligence is alleged against the truck driver a petition against the tempo trax owner and its insurer cannot be entertained. It is pertinent to note that even after investigation, it was not found that there was any negligence by the tempo trax driver but the negligence remained with the truck driver, who was not traced. Therefore, when the final closure report did not implicate the tempo trax driver as a wrong doer, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the petition is not maintainable. 15. Similar view is also expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.5573/2008 C/w MFA No.20383/2009 (between Smt. Laxmi and others v. Sri. Mallareddy and others) disposed on 16.01.2012 wherein it was held that there may be discrepancy between the FIR and the charge sheet material but none else the charge sheet material will have to prevail in law. 16. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P1-FIR even though mentions the name of the driver of the tempo trax as Niranjan S/o. Virabhadrayya, the further statement of the complainant, produced at Ex.P4, categorically mentions that the driver of the tempo trax was not Niranjan and it was Shanmukh S/o. Virabhadrayya. 16. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P1-FIR even though mentions the name of the driver of the tempo trax as Niranjan S/o. Virabhadrayya, the further statement of the complainant, produced at Ex.P4, categorically mentions that the driver of the tempo trax was not Niranjan and it was Shanmukh S/o. Virabhadrayya. Further, the MLC extract produced by the appellant-insurance company herein, marked as Ex.R4 discloses that one V.Shanmukh was also injured in the said accident and he had taken treatment at Government Hospital, Ranebennur. Therefore, the submissions by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was manipulation of the charge sheet by showing the name of the driver of the tempo trax as Shanmukh and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. 17. Coming to the assessment of compensation, there appears to be certain manipulations in respect of the injuries sustained. Ex.P3, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18 are the wound certificates issued by the District Hospital, Haveri by one Dr.G.S.Belagavakar, which discloses the following: Name of the petitioner and document exhibited Injuries sustained Date and time of examination Malatesh Hanumantappa Bhosale (Ex.P3) i) blunt injury over back ii)blunt injury over left buttock, iii)blunt injury over chest, iv) blunt injury over right knee, X-rays show i) fracture of right clavicle, ii) compression fracture of L5, iii) fracture of inferior ramus of public bone, 20.01.2006 At 11.55 a.m. Prashant Sasdashivappa Kandamani (Ex.P12) i) blunt injury on right side chest ii)blunt injury over back, iii)blunt injury over left arm, iv) blunt injury over left thigh, X-ray show i) fracture of outer border of right scapula and fracture of arthritis ii) Compression of L5 iii) fracture of inferior ramus of left pubic 20.01.2006 At 11.45 am. Vittal Parashuram Salunke (Ex.P15) i) blunt injury over back in lower area ii) blunt injury over chest and right forearm iii)) blunt injury over both lips, X-ray show i) fracture of 8th and 9th right ribs and fracture of medial side of right scapula ii) compression fracture of L5, iii) right forearm no fracture iv) fracture of inferior ramus of left pubic bone 20.01.2006 At 11.55 a.m. Shambhuling Mahadevappa Suranagi (Ex.P18) i) blunt injury over chest ii) blunt injury over back iii))blunt injury over right thigh, iv) blunt injury over right leg. X-ray show i) fracture of left clavicle and fracture of 8th and 9th left ribs ii) compression fracture of L5 iii) fracture of superior ramus of right pubic bone 20.01.2006 At 11.50 a.m. 18. It is worth to note that the above evidence depicted in the wound certificate issued by the District Hospital, Haveri is directly in contradiction to the MLC extract produced by the appellant-insurance company before the Tribunal and the testimony of RW 3. The Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 discloses that the petitioners viz., i) Prashant Sadashivappa Kandamani ii) Vihtal Parashuram Solanki, iii) Malatesh Hanamantappa Bhosale and iv) Shambhulingappa Mahadevappa Suranagi had sustained simple injuries in the accident. Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 were summoned by the Tribunal at the instance of the insurance company and in order to prove it, the Insurance Company has examined the doctor who was the medical officer of Ranebennur Government Hospital. The RW3-Dr.Nagaraj States that he was the medical officer at Ranebennur Government Hospital and on 20.12.2005 he was on duty. He states that the petitioners were brought by the fire brigade officials with a history of Road Traffic Accident and all the petitioners had suffered simple injuries. He states that the petitioner Malatesh had suffered injury on the lips, an abrasion on the right leg and pain in left knee and the injuries were simple in nature. The petitioner-Prashant had also suffered injuries on the left hand, abrasion over the left feet and the injuries were simple in nature. Petitioner-Vihtal had suffered abrasion over the forehead and the said injury was also simple in nature. The petitioner-Shambulingappa had suffered abrasion over the back of the left leg and it was also simple in nature. He had recorded the same in the MLC register and he has identified the Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 put in his hand. He states that he did not feel that there was necessity to take the X-rays and the petitioners were treated as out-patients. Therefore, the Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 have been proved by the insurance company as required in law by examining the author of the same. 19. On the contrary, the petitioners who have produced the wound certificate issued by the District Hospital, Belagavi have not examined the medical officer who has issued them. However, Ex.P3, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18 were issued by one Dr.G.S.Belagaumkar. He has not been examined. 19. On the contrary, the petitioners who have produced the wound certificate issued by the District Hospital, Belagavi have not examined the medical officer who has issued them. However, Ex.P3, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18 were issued by one Dr.G.S.Belagaumkar. He has not been examined. Obviously, all the petitioners had approached the District Hospital, Haveri after four days of the accident. Perusal of the oral testimony of these petitioners show that they never mentioned that they were treated at Ranebennur Government Hospital initially and then they were shifted to District Hospital, Haveri. In the cross-examination, they admit that initially they were treated at Ranebennur Government Hospital and after four days they had gone to District Hospital, Haveri. What treatment they took and where they were treated during four days i.e. from 20.12.2005 to 24.12.2005 is not disclosed. 20. Under these circumstances, it is evident that the appellant herein had proved that these petitioners had sustained simple injuries in the accident and on the contrary the evidence placed on record by the petitioners in the form of wound certificate was not proved as required under law. The non-disclosure of the treatment at Government hospital, Ranebennur by these petitioners create a doubt about their credibility. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that they had sustained grievous injuries and they had sustained permanent disability as spoken by Dr.Umanath, who is shown to be PW5 to PW8 is not believable. It is rather surprising that for four days, despite these petitioners sustaining fractures, did not go to District Hospital at Haveri. It is not their case they taken treatment anywhere else also. Therefore, the say that the petitioners that they had sustained grievous injuries as per Ex.P3, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18 cannot be believed. 21. Evidently the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 have been proved by the insurance company as required under law by examining the author of the same. It also failed to note that the petitioners had not disclosed about their treatment taken by them at Government Hospital, Ranebennur and there was no impediment for them to disclose the same. It also failed to note that the disability stated by the PW5 to PW8 was identical in nature. It also failed to note that the petitioners had not disclosed about their treatment taken by them at Government Hospital, Ranebennur and there was no impediment for them to disclose the same. It also failed to note that the disability stated by the PW5 to PW8 was identical in nature. It is also curious to note that though the injuries stated in Ex.P3, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18 are solely varying, it awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,600/- to each of the petitioners. The Tribunal has clearly erred in appreciating the evidence placed before it. Under these circumstances, considering all the injuries sustained by the petitioner as may be found from Ex.R4 to Ex.R6, this Court is of the considered opinion that each of the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of medical expenses, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earning during laid up period and a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Thus, each of the petitioners are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.1,84,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeals are allowed in part. In the result, each of the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.1,84,600/- which as been awarded by the Tribunal. The said compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The judgment and award dated 01.10.2010 in MVC Nos.509/2006, 510/2006, 511/2006 & 512/2006 dated 01.10.2010 passed by the leaned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Ranebennur is modified accordingly. The amount in deposit, if any, made by the appellant-insurance company, is ordered to be transmitted along with the Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.