JUDGMENT : Kaushik Goswami, J. Heard Mr. K K Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. I A Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant as well as Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. 2. None appears for the remaining respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, despite Office Note dated 23.09.2022 records service completed against the aforesaid respondents, which has also been duly noted by this Court by order dated 02.11.2022. 3. The matter is taken up for hearing today. 4 . This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, is directed against the award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in M.A.C. Case No. 09/2010, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- (three lakhs ninety thousand) only was awarded as compensation together with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. The case of the claimant, i.e., respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, was that on the date of occurrence, while travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing registration no. ASD-25-A-5429 (hereinafter referred to as the offending bus), a truck bearing registration no. AS-09-A-1286 (hereinafter referred to as the offending truck) being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck the bus with great force, as a result of which he and other passengers suffered multiple injuries including fracture in his legs. 6. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the materials available on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and since the accident report indicated only the bus as the offending vehicle, exonerated the insurer of the offending truck, i.e., the respondent No. 6 and fixed the entire liability on the insurer of the offending bus, i.e., the present appellant. 7. Mr. K K Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the finding of the Tribunal in fastening the entire liability on the appellant is contrary to the record. He further submits that the claimant himself in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the accident occurred when the offending truck hit the offending bus from behind, which clearly shows the involvement and contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles. He further submits that the claimant himself in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the accident occurred when the offending truck hit the offending bus from behind, which clearly shows the involvement and contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the version of the claimant only because the accident report mentions the offending bus alone, though the maker of the said report/investigating officer was never examined to prove its contents. 8. In support of his aforesaid arguments, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs- New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 , wherein the Apex Court has held that in case of composite negligence in the event both the parties to the component of composite negligence are before the Court and the evidence is sufficient, the Tribunal shall determine the extent of their negligence so that both the parties at fault are equally made liable. 9. Per contra, Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, while supporting the award under appeal, submits that the accident report exhibited by the appellant as Exhibit-1 clearly shows the bus as the offending vehicle and that no material whatsoever was brought by the appellant to show that the offending truck was also at fault. She further submits that in cross-examination, the claimant denied the involvement of the offending truck in the accident. She further submits that the appellant has also not challenged the said Exhibit-1 before the Tribunal at any stage. 10. Mr. I A Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 similarly submits that the evidence of the claimant, though as a whole including cross- examination, makes it evident that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident; however, the accident report (Exhibit-1) having been prepared after investigation, indicates the involvement of only one vehicle, i.e., the bus. He further submits that since the appellant in the Tribunal has not challenged the said accident report nor has produced any material whatsoever to show the involvement of the truck as an offending vehicle, the judgment of the Tribunal under appeal warrants no interference by the appellate Court. 11 . I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 11 . I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 12 . Upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the claimant has filed the claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for award of compensation on account of injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident as a result of which he has become permanently disabled. It appears that that claimant has impleaded, amongst others, both the appellant as well as the respondent No. 6 being the insurers of the two offending vehicles in question. It appears that in the claim petition, the claimant has categorically stated that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus and the accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. It further appears that the claimant deposed before the Tribunal as CW-1 that while he was travelling in the offending bus, the offending truck came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and knocked the offending bus with great force, due to which the driver of the offending bus had to forcefully press the brake in the middle of the road, causing damages to both the offending vehicles as well as the passengers of the bus, including the respondent No. 1 on their person and body. It appears from the medical injury report (Exhibit-6) that the respondent No. 1 suffered the following injuries – a) Compound fracture type -1, both bones of right leg (Tibia+Fibula) b) Fracture Cervical bone fracture with dislocation left hip joint. c) Fracture left femur. d) Fracture of right medical malleolus. 13. It further appears that the claimant, amongst other documents, has also exhibited the accident report prepared by the Investigating Officer on 20.05.2009 as Exhibit-1. 14. It appears that in the said accident report form, under the columns pertaining to information of the vehicle involved in the accident, the particulars of the registration and type of the offending bus and the owner and insurer of the said bus alone has been mentioned. 14. It appears that in the said accident report form, under the columns pertaining to information of the vehicle involved in the accident, the particulars of the registration and type of the offending bus and the owner and insurer of the said bus alone has been mentioned. It further appears that there is no mention of the particulars of the offending truck in the said accident report form. 15. It further appears that during cross-examination, the respondent No. 1 further clarified that when the offending bus reached the middle of the bridge and slowed down, the offending truck hit the bus from behind. It further appears that upon both the learned counsels for the insurance company of the offending vehicles suggesting to the claimant while they were cross-examining the respondent No. 1 during their turns to the effect that their respective vehicles were not at fault, the respondent No. 1 denied the same. 16 . The issue is whether the Tribunal can rely solely upon the accident report for determining the liability of the said insurer of that vehicle, which mentions only the particulars of one of the vehicles involved in the accident in variance with the oral testimony. 17 . Before determining the issue, it is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. Under Section 159 of the said Act, it is provided that the police officer shall, during the investigation in relation to an accident involving motor vehicles, prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such form and manner, within three months and containing such particulars and thereafter submit the same to the claims tribunal. Section 160 further provides that the investigating officer upon a prospective claimant or prospective insurer against whom such claim has been made in respect of an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, shall furnish the information at his disposal relating, inter alia, to the identification marks and other particulars of the vehicle and the name and address of the person who was using the vehicle at the time of the accident or was injured by it, as sought for. It further appears that under Section 166 of the said Act, it is provided that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arisen, or both, may be filed by such injured person or the owner of the property or by all or any of the legal representatives of a deceased where death has resulted from such accident or by any agent authorized by such injured or such legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under Sub-Section 4 of Section 166 of the said Act, it is further provided that in addition to the above, an accident report forwarded under Section 159 , can also be treated by the claims tribunal as an application for compensation under the said Act. Further, Section 168 provides the manner in which the claims tribunal shall make an award in a claim application made under Section 166 of the said Act. It is provided therein that the claims tribunal shall determine the amount of compensation in a just manner and specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and the amount payable to such person by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. Sub-Section 3 of Section 166 provides that when an award is made thereunder, the person who is required to pay the awarded amount shall, within 30 days from the date of announcing the amount by the claims tribunal shall deposit the same as directed. Section 169 provides that the claims tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court, inter alia, for the purpose of taking evidence both, oral and documentary, as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is further provided under Sub-Section 4 of Section 169 that, for the purpose of enforcement of its award, the claims tribunal shall also have all the powers of an executing court under the provisions of the CPC. Pertinent that under Section 170 of the said Act, the claims tribunal is also empowered to implead the insurer of an offending vehicle who is liable in respect of such claim, if the claimant has not impleaded the said insurer therein. Pertinent that under Section 170 of the said Act, the claims tribunal is also empowered to implead the insurer of an offending vehicle who is liable in respect of such claim, if the claimant has not impleaded the said insurer therein. Therefore, in order to fix the liability of the insurer in relation to the claim, the Tribunal has to satisfy itself of the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. 18 . In the present case, the evidence, prima facie, discloses the involvement of both the vehicles. The Tribunal, however, while determining the claim, fixed the liability only upon the appellant by totally ignoring the oral testimony indicating the involvement of the offending truck in the accident in question as well, by merely relying upon the said accident report. The said accident report is nothing but information of the accident given to the claims tribunal by the investigating officer for facilitating the adjudication of the claim. 19 . The General Diary Entry produced by the appellant, though not exhibited before the Tribunal, merely records information and is not conclusive proof of the incident or of the manner of occurrence. It is true that under Section 159 of the said Act, the police officer is required to submit an accident information report to the claims tribunal during investigation. However, in the present case, though such a report has been produced, it has not been proved by examining the investigating officer or the maker thereof. Hence, the contents of the accident report cannot be treated as conclusive or binding, particularly, when the same stands in variance with the oral testimony of the claimant. 20. Be that as it may, when the oral testimony of the claimant indicates the involvement of the offending truck, it would not be just, fair or equitable to fasten the entire liability solely upon the insurer of the bus, i.e., appellant herein, particularly, in view of the doubtful evidentiary value of the accident report. At the same time, the evidence presently on record is insufficient to definitely determine the extent of negligence, if any, attributable to each of the vehicles. 21 . From the scheme of the said Act, it is thus evident that the accident information report is intended primarily to facilitate the settlement of claims and assist the Tribunal in the adjudication process. 21 . From the scheme of the said Act, it is thus evident that the accident information report is intended primarily to facilitate the settlement of claims and assist the Tribunal in the adjudication process. The said report, though prepared during the investigation, is only informational in nature and does not by itself constitute substantive or conclusive proof of either the occurrence or the manner of the accident. Under Sections 169 and 170 of the said Act, the Tribunal has powers akin to those of a civil court to take such additional evidence as it considers necessary. Ordinarily, if the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties is sufficient and reliable, the Tribunal may proceed to determine the issue of liability on that basis alone. However, where the evidence is conflicting or inadequate or where the accident information report does not align with other credible material, the Tribunal is duty-bound to call for further clarification, including summoning the investigating officer or obtaining additional information from the police authorities to reach a fair and proper finding. Be it reiterated that the claimant in his examination-in-chief stated that the accident occurred when the offending truck hit the offending bus from the behind, whereas, in cross-examination he clarified that both, the truck and the bus were at fault. The General Diary Entry records the involvement of both the vehicles, while the accident information report mentions only the bus. In view of these inconsistencies, the Tribunal ought to have examined the investigating officer or called for additional material from the concerned police station before concluding that the bus alone was responsible for the accident. 22 . In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the findings of the Tribunal fixing liability exclusively upon the appellant and to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh determination limited to the question of involvement and extent of negligence of the respective vehicles. However, the quantum of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed as per the award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned MACT, Golaghat in M.A.C. Case No. 09/2010. 23 . Ordered accordingly. 24 . However, the quantum of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed as per the award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned MACT, Golaghat in M.A.C. Case No. 09/2010. 23 . Ordered accordingly. 24 . The Tribunal shall, after affording opportunity to all parties, permit them to adduce additional oral or documentary evidence, including examination or cross- examination of the investigating officer or other relevant witnesses, and thereafter, determine the proportion of liability between the two vehicles, in accordance with law. 25 . It is noticed that during the pendency of this appeal, while staying the operation of the impugned award, this Court directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount before the Tribunal for release in favour of the claimant. The office note indicates that such amount has been duly deposited and, upon the claimant’s application, the Tribunal has released the same to the claimant by cheque. 26 . As the matter is now being remitted to the Tribunal only for limited determination regarding involvement and extent of liability of the respective vehicles, the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellant at the time of filing this appeal shall be returned to the appellant. 27 . It is further observed that since the appellant already deposited and the claimant has received the 50% of the awarded amount pursuant to the interim direction of this Court dated 07.04.2021 passed in I.A.(Civil) No. 693/2021, in the event the learned Tribunal upon remand holds that the offending truck was more at fault or that the proportion of negligence attributable to the offending bus is lesser than 50%, the appellant shall be entitled to seek reimbursement or adjustment of the excess amount paid from the respondent No. 6 in accordance with the final determination of liability. Such reimbursement or adjustment shall be effected through the Tribunal upon proper verification and calculation at the time of passing the final order after remit. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the Tribunal fixing the entire liability upon the appellant, i.e., the insurer of the offending bus, is hereby set aside. 29 . Return the TCR, along with a copy of this order forthwith. 30 . The parties are directed to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat on 26.11.2025 along with a certified copy of this order, without awaiting further notice. 29 . Return the TCR, along with a copy of this order forthwith. 30 . The parties are directed to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat on 26.11.2025 along with a certified copy of this order, without awaiting further notice. The Tribunal shall thereafter proceed with the matter from that stage and endeavor to complete the exercise, preferably within three months from the date of such appearance.