The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence recorded in criminal court should not be used in claim cases, and reliance on the F. I. R. to absolve the insurance company from liability was incorrect and unsound.

( 1 ) IN this appeal preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), claimant has called in question the legal acceptability of the award dated 12. 8. 1999 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Maihar, District Satna in Claim case No. 7 of 1995 whereby the Claims tribunal has absolved the insurance company and fastened the liability of payment of compensation on the owner, solely on the ground that, the person who lodged the f. I. R. before the investigation agency, PW 2, had stated that the petitioner claimant was travelling in a truck bearing registration No. UP 32-A 6597 and whereas in his statement in court, he has stated that he was standing on the roadside, where the truck hit him. As there was a discrepancy in the statement, claimant can be treated as a passenger and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed before this court that the accident had occurred; that the claimant has sustained injury; and that the claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards the compensation keeping in view the 45 per cent permanent disability and that the owner has been made liable to pay the compensation, the core question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal while dealing with issue No. 6 (b), namely, whether there has been breach of policy has returned the finding correctly. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para 5 of the award passed by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has laid emphasis on the factum that there was discrepancy in the statement made by PW 2 in the court and the F. I. R. and the F. I. R. being initial report should be given credence. Being of this view, the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that the claimant was travelling as a passenger in the truck and hence, he was not covered by the insurance policy.

( 3 ) MR. Anil Lala, learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred by placing reliance on the F. I. R. In the said F. I. R. , it was categorically stated that the claimant was standing on the roadside when the truck travelled from that place and injured him. That apart, submission of Mr. Lala is that PW 2 remained unshaken and that the accident had taken place when the claimant was standing on the roadside.

( 4 ) THE seminal issue that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal rightly recorded the conclusion on the basis of the version of the F. I. R. which was lodged to set the criminal law in motion or should have given credence to the testimony of the witnesses which were recorded before him as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has commended us to a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Dhanwanti v. Kulwant Singh, 1994 ACJ 708 (MP ). In the aforesaid case almost in similar circumstances in paras 10 and 11, this court had expressed the view as under:" (10) Coming to the other contention that the deceased was travelling as a passenger and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation, it has also no merit. True, the f. I. R. , Exh. D/2c and the statement of the Investigating Officer gives a version which supports the case of the insurance company, but even assuming that the f. I. R. is a public document, it is the rule of law that it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only for purposes of corroboration or contradiction of the maker only. The maker having not been examined by either side, statement of A. S. Yadav carries no weight as he only investigated the occurrence. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. His testimony is of hearsay evidence, therefore, the conclusions which he had drawn after the investigation cannot be taken into consideration unless supported by proper material. It is a well settled proposition of law that evidence recorded in criminal court and the findings arrived at thereo