As per case facts, a vehicle accident involving a tyre burst resulted in a fatality and injuries. The initial FIR named the appellant, Doctor Milind Kanhekar, as the driver, leading ... the Tribunal to hold him liable for compensation. The appellant appealed, asserting that Dr. Vishalsingh Parihar, possessing a valid license, was the actual driver, a fact corroborated by other occupants, Doctor Parihar's own testimony (who was later charge-sheeted), and a supplementary statement from the original informant. The Insurance Company, however, relied on the initial FIR and expert medical opinion connecting the appellant's injuries to a driver's position. The question arose whether the initial FIR or subsequent investigation evidence, including witness testimonies and the charge-sheet, should determine the driver's identity. Finally, the High Court found the expert's opinion insufficient given the circumstances of a vehicle rollover and affirmed that the charge-sheet, being the outcome of a thorough investigation and supported by direct evidence, prevails over an initial FIR. The appellant was exonerated, and the Insurance Company was held liable.