THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1933 of 1999: DATED: 18.09.2009 BETWEEN: Madapati Vijayaramaraju .. Appellant And T.Jaya Lakshmi and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1933 of 1999: JUDGMENT: This is a claimant’s appeal challenging the award, dated 08.02.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur by means of which the claim petition filed by the appellant/injured-claimant was dismissed in toto. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.73,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.07.1993 wherein lorry bearing No.AP-31- T-2880 was involved. 3. It is the version of the appellant before the Tribunal that on 25.07.1993 at 11.00 a.m. while the claimant was driving the lorry bearing No.AAG-1881, another lorry bearing No. No.AP-31-T-2880 driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed the lorry of the appellant, due to which the appellant sustained grievous injury on the left clavicle and ultimately incurred permanent disability. It is also mentioned in the claim petition that the police Guntur Taluk registered the case in Crime No.130 of 1993 regarding the accident. According to the appellant, the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP-31-T-2880 by it’s driver. The owner as well as the insurer of the lorry bearing No. AP-31-T-2880 who were respondents before the Tribunal as well as the before this Court opposed the petition on the ground that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AAG-1881 (petitioner himself) and therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/clamant as well as the second respondent insurance company. 5. In the Tribunal below the appellant examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. The learned Tribunal upon perusing the contents of Ex.A-1, F.I.R. wherein it is mentioned that the claimant who was driving his lorry in a rash and negligent manner, tried to overtake the lorry which was proceeding ahead of his lorry and thereafter dashed the lorry bearing No.AP-31-T-2880. Thus, the F.I.R. relied upon by the appellant claimant clearly indicates that the accident was due to the fault of the claimant himself. Though the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and is useful only to contradict or corroborate the maker of it, since the claimant himself relied on the said document, and the same is marked on his behalf, he is estopped from contending that the contents of the said document are not correct or that he can dispute the said contents. Another important factor, which has to be considered in this context, is the F.I.R. was lodged by the driver of AP-31-T-2880 i.e. the lorry, which was coming in the opposite direction to the lorry of the claimant. Though the appellant impleaded the owner and insurance company of the said vehicle as respondents to the claim petition, he did not implead the driver of the said vehicle i.e. the person who lodged the Ex.A-1 F.I.R. as respondent to the claim petition. Further the appellant in order to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has to establish that the accident was not due to his fault and that he is a third party who can only initiate proceedings claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden is heavy on the appellant to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-T-2880. The burden is much more heavy because he relied upon the F.I.R., the copy of which is marked as Ex.A-1 in the present case and the said F.I.R. is admittedly lodged by the driver of the lorry bearing No. No.AP-31-T-2880. Since the contents of Ex.A-1 F.I.R. contradict the version of the appellant, and the appellant cannot under law contend that he is not bound by the contents of the F.I.R. and also that the contents therein are not correct. It is he who has to fail but not the respondents for the above-mentioned reasons. 6. In view of what all stated hereinabove, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:18.09.2009. CCM