The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Chennappa Shettigar on 16 December, 2008
12. As could be seen from the records, the
appellants-claimants have produced Ex.P-1-certified
copy of FIR and complaint, Ex.P-2-certified copy of
charge sheet, Ex.P-3, certified copy of spot panchanama
and Ex.P-4 certified copy of post mortem report. The
respondents have examined the driver of the lorry as
RW-1 who had deposed the fact that on 14.02.2009
when he was driving the lorry from Mangalore to
Jamkhandi, at about 9.00 p.m. he had parked his truck
12
on the extreme left side of the Highway near Ajjikatta at
Ankola in order to visit his house and the parking lights
of the truck were on and in spite of the same, the car
collided with the lorry and as such the accident has
taken place because of the rash and negligent act of the
driver of the car. The evidence of RW-1 has not been
accepted by the Tribunal and has come to the
conclusion that both the drivers, of the car as well as
the truck have contributed to the alleged accident and
are negligent to an extent of 50% each. The Division
Bench decision of this Court relied on by the learned
counsel for the insurer in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited vs. Chennappa
Shettigar and Ors. reported in IV(2009) ACC 406 (DB)
clearly goes to show that by assessing the evidence, the
Tribunal, if it has come to the conclusion to the effect
that the ratio of liability is 50:50 then, under such
circumstances, the same is justifiable. Though the
learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
13
material evidence is not going to substantiate the said
contention but in my considered view, the Tribunal,
after taking into consideration the criminal records and
the evidence adduced by RW-1, has come to a right and
just conclusion. In this behalf, the findings which has
been given by the Tribunal is liable to be affirmed.