JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria clete, J) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2022, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P. No. 1032 of 2019. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that on 09.01.2019, when the deceased, husband of the first respondent was driving the Eicher Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-11-7032, belonging to the fifth respondent and insured with the sixth respondent, in the Krishnagiri Hosur NH Road towards Hosur near Melumalal Kanavai Bridge, the driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-88-A-4179 belonging to the seventh respondent and insured with the appellant, all of a sudden stopped the Lorry without any signal as a result of which, the deceased hit against the lorry back side and sustained grievous injuries on his vital organs and died on the way to Hospital. The claimant alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ashok Leyland lorry. However, based on a false complaint lodged by the driver of the ongoing lorry, the Gurubarapalli Police registered a case against the deceased in Crime No. 12 of 2019 under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the IPC. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 have filed claim petition against the appellant and the respondents 5 to 7 seeking compensation. 3. The fifth and seventh respondents remained exparte before the tribunal. The sixth respondent has filed a counter stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry who has stopped the vehicle all of a sudden without any signal and taking advantage of the fatal injuries, the driver of the lorry rushed to the police station and lodged the FIR and hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation. However, the appellant has filed a counter stating that the deceased has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry and thus, the deceased was a tort-feasor and hence, the respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled for compensation under the Forum for Motor Vehicle Act and they ought to have filed claim petition by adopting the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act. 4. 4. The respondents 1 to 4 have examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 17 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. The appellant examined the driver of the seventh respondent as RW1 and no documents have been marked. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, documents and materials on records had concluded that the appellant is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.24,07,600/- to the respondents 1 to 4. Challenging the said order, the appellant has come by way of this appeal. 6. The primary contention raised is that the Tribunal failed to consider the negligence of the deceased and instead held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the third respondent’s vehicle, which was insured with the fourth respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that if the deceased maintained a reasonable speed and distance between the ongoing lorry, he would have had control over his vehicle and accident would not have happened. It is contended that as per Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, 'the driver of the vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop' and relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ' Nishan Singh and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ' [ (2018) 6 Supreme Court Cases 765 ]. He further submitted that the vicarious liability arises only when the driver of the insured vehicle was tort-feasor and thus, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 and sought for allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and the sixth respondent contended that due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, who had suddenly stopped the vehicle without any signal, the accident had occurred and hence, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. 8. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was correct in attributing negligence solely to the driver of the Ashok Leyland vehicle (RW1) or whether the deceased was also negligent, warranting a finding of contributory negligence. 9. 8. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was correct in attributing negligence solely to the driver of the Ashok Leyland vehicle (RW1) or whether the deceased was also negligent, warranting a finding of contributory negligence. 9. Before the Tribunal, two occurrence witnesses were examined regarding the accident: a. The driver of the van, who was driving alongside the deceased’s vehicle. b. The driver of the third respondent’s Ashok Leyland vehicle. 10. The appellant-insurer heavily relied on the FIR registered against the deceased to argue that the accident occurred due to his negligence. While it is true that an FIR was lodged against the deceased, it is well settled that an FIR is not conclusive proof of the incident. In this case, the FIR was registered based on a written complaint given by RW1, the driver of the third respondent’s vehicle, who is an interested party in the accident. Therefore, his statement cannot be regarded as absolute or unquestionable truth. 11. In contrast, PW2, an independent witness, was driving his vehicle on the side of the road when the accident occurred. He immediately informed the ambulance service and arranged for the victim to be taken to the hospital. PW2 deposed that the deceased was driving his vehicle slowly behind the third respondent’s vehicle, but RW1 (driver of the third respondent’s vehicle) suddenly applied brakes without giving any signal. As a result, the deceased’s vehicle collided with the rear side of the third respondent’s vehicle. Due to the impact, the deceased lost control of the steering and was unable to move. Although PW2 was subjected to detailed cross-examination, nothing substantial emerged to discredit his version. Given this, merely because an FIR was registered against the deceased, it cannot be concluded that the accident occurred due to his negligence. 12. Furthermore, it is evident that the deceased was in no position to give a statement or lodge a complaint, whereas RW1 (driver of the third respondent’s vehicle) was able to immediately approach the police station and file a complaint. The police, without conducting a proper investigation, simply closed the case based on the fact that the accused in the FIR was deceased. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in independently assessing the evidence before it. 13. The police, without conducting a proper investigation, simply closed the case based on the fact that the accused in the FIR was deceased. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in independently assessing the evidence before it. 13. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the evidence of PW2 and RW1 and rightly concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving of RW1. When the Tribunal has already determined that the accident was entirely due to the fault of RW1, the question of contributory negligence, as argued by the appellant-insurer, does not arise. 14. The appellant’s reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) to argue that the deceased failed to maintain a safe distance under Regulation 23 of the Road Regulations, 1989 is misplaced in this case. Here, the evidence shows that the lorry driver (RW1) abruptly applied brakes without giving any signal, especially on a highway, making the accident unavoidable even if the deceased maintained a reasonable distance. The testimony of P.W.2, an independent witness, confirms that the deceased was not speeding, and the sudden halt by RW1 without warning clearly establishes his negligence. The duty to maintain a safe distance does not absolve the preceding vehicle from its duty of care, particularly when stopping abruptly without signaling. The proximate cause of the accident was the sudden, unannounced halt by the lorry driver, not the deceased’s failure to maintain distance. Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding attributing sole negligence to the lorry driver is justified, and the appeal warrants no interference. 15. Further, there is no significant dispute regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant has not raised any substantive challenge on this aspect. 16. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the civil miscellaenous appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal’s order is upheld. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount determined by this Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit along with interest and costs (less the default period, if any), less the amount already deposited if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw the award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaenous petition is closed.