ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY , J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1.Owner of the offending vehicle is in appeal against the judgment/ Award of compensation under 166 of M.V. Act dated 21.02.2015 passed by learned District Judge-X cum Presiding Officer M.A.C.T, Dhanbad, in Title (MV) Claim Case No. 165/2008, whereby and whereunder liability to pay compensation has been fixed on him. 2. As per the finding of the learned Tribunal the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles and consequently liability has been equally fixed on the owner/insurer of both the vehicles. Since the Trekker bearing registration no. BR-12-A-4704 was not insured at the relevant time of accident, therefore the owner has been held liable to pay the compensation amount. 3. Appeal is preferred on the ground that the Trekker bearing registration no. BR-12-A-4704 was not the offending vehicle, it was Tata 407 Pick-up Van bearing registration no. JH-10C-8979 which had dashed the Trekker resulting in accident. Issue No. IV regarding the negligence on the part of Tata 407 Pick-up Van bearing registration no. JH-10C-8979 was framed, but it has not been properly answered, considering the evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of the claimant is in appearance and submits that deceased was driver of the Trekker bearing registration no. BR-12-A-4704 and learned Tribunal recorded a finding of contributory negligence on his part and 50% of compensation amount of Rs. 4,35,500/- with interest @ 8% to be paid by the appellant. 5. Although the owner and the insurer of the Tata 407 Pick-up Van bearing registration no. JH-10C-8979, entered into appearance before the Tribunal but have not appeared before this Court despite the notice having been validly served. 6. Main point for determination in this appeal is if the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata 407 Pick-up Van bearing registration no. JH-10C-8979? 7. On perusal of the records of the case, it appears that claimant examined altogether three witnesses. C.W.-1 is the only eye witness to the accident, who was examined on behalf of the claimants. He has attributed the accident to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata 407. However, D.W no. 1 examined on behalf of the defendant no. C.W.-1 is the only eye witness to the accident, who was examined on behalf of the claimants. He has attributed the accident to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata 407. However, D.W no. 1 examined on behalf of the defendant no. 3 (appellant), has also attributed the accident, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata 407. No contrary evidence has been led to show that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the trekker which resulted in the accident. 8. From Ext. 1, it appears that Barkatta P.S. Case No. 39/2005 was registered under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC against the driver of both the vehicles. Police on investigation found case true and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the Tata 407. However, the accident has been attributed to rash and negligent driver by the both the vehicles. It has been held in 2009 ACC 680 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Kamli that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and as such it cannot be placed on a pedestal higher than the statement made before the claim’s tribunal on oath. 9. This Court is of the view that oral evidence given on oath cannot be brushed aside, to record a finding that it was a case of contributory negligence on account of the fault of driver of both the vehicles, only on the basis of the FIR and charge-sheet. 10.In this view of matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, thereby fixing liability to pay 50% of the compensation amount on the appellant who is the owner of the Trekker is set aside. Respondent No.5, Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of Tata 407 Pick-up Van bearing registration no. JH-10C-8979, shall be liable to pay the full compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. 11. Respondent No.5 is accordingly directed to pay the full compensation amount within a month of this order, by depositing the same with the Tribunal, and the same shall be disbursed to the claimants as per the terms fixed by it. Amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the final compensation amount. 12. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. Amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the final compensation amount. 12. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending I.A (s)., If any, stands disposed of.