has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage C.A @ SLP(C) NO.4705 of 2019 to the contents in the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. In the judgment, relied on by the appellants counsel in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Premlata Shuk and Other1, this court has held that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of vehicles, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it is held that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and Others V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2, this court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which was proceeding in front of the same, was driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under Road Regulations, C.A @ SLP(c) no.4705/2019 framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Having regard to evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case.
