The main legal point established is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the apportionment of responsibility in motor vehicle accident cases.

1. CMA No.2983 of 2003 is filed, as against the award in MCOP No.807 of 1994 and CMA No.2984 of 2003 is filed, as against the award passed in MCOP No.26 of 1995.

2. It is the case of collision between the two vehicles, bearing Registration No.TN33-N-0524 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited and the lorry, bearing Registration No.TCB 6828.

3. As per the case of the claimants in MCOP No.807 of 1994, the Corporation Bus, which was proceeding from Avinashipalayam Sangam towards the north, dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No.TCB 6828. The cause of accident, as stated in the claim petition, is that both the bus and the lorry were driven in a rash and negligent manner and that was the reason why, the deceased, who was travelling in the bus, suffered an accident and died. But it is not explained as to how both the vehicles were rash and negligent, while being driven.

3.1. According to the averments made in MCOP No.26 of 1995, the petitioner, Senthilnathan, was travelling in Jeeva Transport Corporation Bus and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles.

4. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, has given a finding that both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident and therefore, the compensation has to be apportioned between the two vehicles equally, as both the drivers were tort-feasors.

5. The above findings on negligence and the apportionment of responsibility in equal proportion are under challenge by the Insurance Company.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimants in MCOP No.807 of 1994 and the claimant in MCOP No.26 of 1995 had been examined as witnesses. The First Information Report has been marked as Ex.P-1. On the side of the respondents, only the conductor of the Transport Corporation has been examined. According to the averments made in the First Information Report, which is laid by the driver of the lorry, the allegation is that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. As per the allegations made, when the lorry was moving forward, the bus, which came behind, dashed against the backside of the lorry and pushed the lorry to a distance of 40 feet.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the First Information Report has been relied upon by the claimants themselves and therefore, it is binding upon them and it is not open to the claimants to contend that the negligence was also on the part of the lorry driver.

7.1. This contention cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. (a) First of all, laying complaint is for the purpose of setting the criminal law in motion and the allegations made in the complaint is open to investigation and it would not amount to conclusion. (b) The First Information Report may be relied upon for several purposes. It may be relied upon for the purpose of showing that there was an accident on that particular date. It may also be relied upon to show that the vehicle involved in the accident is the one named in the complaint. It may also be relied upon either to show the death or the number of persons injured. Therefore, just because the First Information Report is filed before the Court, it cannot be that all the averments made in the First Information Report are admitted to be truth of the matter stated therein. It is also relevant to point out that the First Information Report can be relied upon either for corroboration or for contradiction and it is not a substantive piece of evidence.

7.2. A perusal of the evidence given by the claimant (evidence of P.W.4), during his cross-examination would go to show that the details, as given in the First Information Report, under Ex.P-1, is correct. There is further evidence in the cross-examination that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver and therefore, the