The order dated 28-12-2004, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum -Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in O.P. No.661 of 1998, is challenged by the 2nd respondent therein.

2. 1st respondent is the wife, respondents 2 to 6 are children and respondents 7 and 8 are the parents of late Doriya. He was the ownercum-drive of a vehicle, bearing No.AAB-338, which was used in transporting bricks and sand, to Hyderabad.

3. On 20-5-1998, the lorry driven by late Doriya reached the cross roads at Aramghar. At that time, a lorry bearing No.AP-11T-5423, owned by the 9th respondent and insured with the appellant, came and collided with other lorry. Doriya is said to have died due to the injuries, after he was shifted to Osmania Hospital. Crime NO.1930f 1998 was registered.

The respondents 1 to 8 claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act"). It was alleged that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/to 7,000/- per month and that his age was 40 years.

4. The O.P. was resisted by the appellant herein. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. It was pleaded that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, and as such the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also alleged that the driver of the lorry, which was insured with the appellant, did not hold valid driving licence, and thereby, it cannot be required to pay the compensation. Other ancillary contentions were also urged.

5. The Tribunal held that the deceased was also responsible to the extent of 50%, for the occurrence of the accident, and that the appellant and the 15t respondent herein are liable to pay 50% of the compensation arrived at by it.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident took place, wholly on account of the rash and negligent driving, on the part of the deceased, and that there was no justification for the Tribunal, in apportioning the liability against the other vehicle and its insurer. He contends that the basis adopted in determining the compensation, is also incorrect.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 submits that though the evidence on record disclosed that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving, on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-11T-5423, the Tribunal apportioned the 91 liability, in equal shares, and that no interference is called for with the order. It is also alleged that the income and multiplier are adopted, in accordance with the relevant provisions.

8. The deceased died on account of collision between the two lorries, referred to above. He was driving one of the lorries, bearing NO.AAB-338. On behalf of respondents 1 to 8, P.Ws.1 and2 were examined. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. He was, in fact, travelling in the lorry, which was driven by the deceased. Nothing was elicited through him in the cross-examination, to doubt the veracity of his statement.

9. The only basis for the appellant, in urging that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the deceased, is, the FIR in Crime No.193 of 1998, which was marked as EX.A-1. It may be true that the informant, or the recording police official may have stated that the accident had occurred, on account of the negligent driving, on the part of the deceased. However, it must not be forgotten that the contents of FIR cannot be treated as conclusive proof of such aspects. The relevance of FIR in the claim petitions filed under the Act, is virtually limited to see whether the accident and the death or injuries have taken place, at all. Beyond that, it cannot be taken use of, to affix or apportion the liability in causing the accident. Further, if the appellant intended that the contents of the FIR must be taken into account, even as per the general principles of evidence, it must have examined the person, who gave the First Information Report, or the official, who prepared the FIR. Wit