<p>The Supreme Court has said a motor accident claim tribunal is not bound to rely upon the FIR to decide compensation if the evidence before it runs contrary to the contents of the police report. </p>.<p>A bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd appeal against the Madras High Court's order to pay Rs 1.84 cr compensation to Chamundeswari, wife and a minor son of a deceased, Subhash Babu, who worked as manager HR in a private company and died in 2013 at NH-47 after being hit by a negligently driven Eicher van.</p>.<p>The company said the FIR revealed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for the accident but the High Court ignored important documentary evidence and enhanced the compensation, though the tribunal had correctly noted it.</p>.<p>The counsel for the family of the deceased employee, however, said Subhash Babu was driving Maruti car and the Eicher van was proceeding ahead of them and the driver suddenly turned towards right side without any signal or indicator and the said lapse resulted in the accident.</p>.<p>Going through the statements of the wife of the deceased who was travelling in the car and an eye-witness, the court said their evidence is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van.</p>.<p>"In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR. If any evidence before the tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FIR, the evidence which is recorded before the tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the FIR," the bench said in its judgement. </p>.<p><strong>Check out latest videos from <i data-stringify-type="italic">DH</i>:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said a motor accident claim tribunal is not bound to rely upon the FIR to decide compensation if the evidence before it runs contrary to the contents of the police report. </p>.<p>A bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd appeal against the Madras High Court's order to pay Rs 1.84 cr compensation to Chamundeswari, wife and a minor son of a deceased, Subhash Babu, who worked as manager HR in a private company and died in 2013 at NH-47 after being hit by a negligently driven Eicher van.</p>.<p>The company said the FIR revealed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for the accident but the High Court ignored important documentary evidence and enhanced the compensation, though the tribunal had correctly noted it.</p>.<p>The counsel for the family of the deceased employee, however, said Subhash Babu was driving Maruti car and the Eicher van was proceeding ahead of them and the driver suddenly turned towards right side without any signal or indicator and the said lapse resulted in the accident.</p>.<p>Going through the statements of the wife of the deceased who was travelling in the car and an eye-witness, the court said their evidence is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van.</p>.<p>"In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR. If any evidence before the tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FIR, the evidence which is recorded before the tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the FIR," the bench said in its judgement. </p>.<p><strong>Check out latest videos from <i data-stringify-type="italic">DH</i>:</strong></p>
