K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in m. V. C. No. 139 of 1995 are the L. Rs. of deceased Babanbi and the petitioners in m. V. C. No. 142 of 1995 are the L. Rs. of the deceased Khasimbee who died in motor vehicle accident. The deceased were travelling in a lorry bearing No. CNR 3303. The occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver is not in dispute. The liability of the insurer is in dispute. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 750 per month, applying multiplier of 17 awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,33,900 in M. V. C. No. 139 of 1995 and in M. V. C. No. 142 of 1995 compensation of Rs. 98,000 is awarded with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. Claims Tribunal directed that the compensation to be payable by the owner and the insurer of the lorry.

( 2 ) THE insurer has filed the appeals and the claimants have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. The petitioners contend that the deceased were getting back from place of work to home and on their way they were hit by the lorry in question. Therefore, contend that the owner and insurer are liable towards third party liability.

( 3 ) THE owner and the insurer have denied the accident and liability. The petitioners have produced the criminal case papers, viz. , F. I. R. , marked as Exh. P1. The contents of Exh. P1 disclose that the deceased were travelling in the goods vehicle as passengers. Tribunal has held that the deceased were pedestrians. Accordingly, directed compensation payable by the owner and insurer.

( 4 ) IT is the contention of the insurer in appeal that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners explicitly disclose that deceased were travelling in the goods vehicle as passengers. Thus argued that in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC), the insurer does not incur any liability.

( 5 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the rulings of madras High Court in Managing Director, annai Sathya Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. P. Saraswathi, 1992 ACJ 248 (Madras) and ruling of Orissa High Court in Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Sahid Khan, 1995 ACJ 624 (Orissa) and ruling of the high Court of Punjab and Haryana in Virat sama v. Mohan Lal, 1994 ACJ 432 (Pandh), to contend that the contents of F. I. R. have to be rejected when the contents of F. I. R. is not proved by examining the author.

( 6 ) IN the decision cited, it is not clear as to who produced a copy of F. I. R. marked in evidence. In the present case, petitioners have produced the F. I. R. and marked it as their evidence. It is the salutary principle of law that the documents and its contents produced as evidence will bind the party who has produced the same. There is no duty on the part of the opponent to prove the contents of the documents produced by the other side. In the instant case, the first information report and the other documents relating to criminal case have been prouced by the petitioners as their evidence. The said document binds the petitioners. Had the first information report and the other documents are produced by the respondents perhaps there is a duty on the part of the respondents to prove the documents produced by them by examining the competent witness. Therefore, the contention that the first information report and other documents relating to criminal case are inadmissible and that the respondent has not proved the contents is untenable. It is to be noted that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to trials and inquiry relating to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The only criteria to accept the documentary evidence would be to see whether the document is genuine and whether its veracity is acceptable. If these two conditions are satisfied the court can rely on such documentary evidence to adjudicate the rights of the parties, it cannot be said in this case that Exh. P1 is not a gen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document