In this case, the accident is not in dispute. The only argument of counsel for the appellants is that the negligence was of the deceased,motor-cyclist, only and as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation. The argument has been developed mainly on the statement of RW-1 Tola Ram, driver of the auto-rickshaw. There is no merit in this contention. The case mainly rests on the statement of AW-1 Rajinder Kumar, an eye-witness. His evidence suggests that Jai Lal, motor-cyclist, was on the correct side of the road whereas the three-wheeler No.HRD-5365 which had come from Pataudi side, driven by Tola Ram, and hit against the motor-cycle thereby causing the said unfortunate accident resulting in death of Jai Lal, motor-cyclist. No doubt, as per his version, one Parveen Kumar an d Des Raj had also witnessed the accident but non-examination of the said witnesses does not affect the case of the claimants in any manner. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence that matters. AW-1 Rajinder Kumar is an independent witness. He has no axe to grind. He is the author of the FIR which was lodged with utmost promptness on that day itself narrating the complete sequence of events. Prompt lodging of FIR rules out every possibility of consultations and deliberations. Concededly, the case had been registered against Tola Ram. Had it been a false case, it was expected of him to move representation to the higher Authorities about the registration of a false case but inaction on his part raises an adverse inference to his said plea. Admittedly, he is facing trial in relation to the
