lorry. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant placed reliance on the decision in National Insurance Company vs. P. Rajalakshmi and others reported in (2019) 1 TN MAC 545 (Mad) to contend that when there is contradiction in the deposition of witnesses and the First Information Report, the statement on oath alone has to be given evidentiary value and the First Information Report, cannot be given much credence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal ignored the deposition of PW3, who himself suffered injuries as an occupant of the car and erroneously concluded that the accident had occurred when the lorry was stationary. The Tribunal failed to note that the statement was given by P.W.3 when he was getting treated in the hospital, based on which, the First Information Report was registered. But in the First Information Report, it was stated that one W.Jinohans, brother of PW3 has given the complaint, but he was not examined before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company to disprove the averments made in the claim petition. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have ignored the deposition of P.W.3, while placing heavy reliance on the First Information Report, to disposing of the claim petition. At the same time, the trial court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nishan singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2018 (1) TN MAC 745 (SC) and rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the deceased had not kept safe distance while following the lorry. Thus, the Tribunal, on the one hand concluded that the lorry was stationary at the time of accident, but on the other hand, it has concluded that the deceased failed to keep sufficient distance behind the ongoing lorry to avoid the accident while driving the car. The Tribunal failed to note that, on completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet was filed only as against the driver of the lorry. In such circumstances, the Tribunal, by rejecting the case of the Insurance Company, ought to have awarded a reasonable amount as compensation, or in the alternative, by fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as on the part of the driver of the lorry, apportioned the compensation amount.
