Main A v. Road, Chamraj Peth, This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes
Facts
This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{1} 1821-18.docdrpIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.1821 OF 20181.Smt. Chandrakala w/o Dilip Pawar APPELLANTSAge – 43 years, Occ – HouseholdR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar2.Jayashree d/o Dilip Pawar,Age – 24 years, Occ – HouseholdR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar3.Pravin s/o Dilip PawarAge – 20 years, Occ – Education R/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar4.Sandip s/o Dilip PawarAge – 17 years, Minor under Guardian of his motherSmt. Chandrakala Dilip PawarAge – 43 years, Occ – HouseholdR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar5.Baburao s/o Rambhau PawarAge – 70 years, Occ – AgricultureR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar6.Shakuntala w/o Baburao PawarAge – 63 years, Occ – HouseholdR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict - AhmednagarVERSUS1.N. K. Kumarasamy s/o Natrajan RESPONDENTSAge – Major, Occ – BusinessR/o No. 8, S. S. S. Building – 1, Main A. V. Road, Chamraj Peth,
Legal Reasoning
This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{12} 1821-18.docexclusive negligence on the part of truck driver, I am of the viewthat it is case of contributory negligence of the truck driver aswell as deceased both. I apportion it in the ratio of 70:30between the two respectively.”11.While making the above observations, the Tribunal hasignored the substantive evidence of PW-4, the eyewitness to theaccident, who has described the manner in which the accidenthas taken place and he was present there, who had taken thedeceased to hospital. Nothing is brought on record by theInsurance Company in his cross-examination to disbelieve himand the fact that he was not the eyewitness to the accident. Factremains that no plea of contributory negligence is raised by theInsurance Company in their Written Statement.12.It is well settled that claimants have to prove their case onthe touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and standard ofproof, expected from them is not beyond reasonable doubt. Theclaimants have discharged their burden of proving the fact thatthe accident has taken place due to the rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the offending truck, by examining PW-4eyewitness to the accident. Without discussing his evidence, theTribunal has erroneously proceeded to hold that there wascontributory negligence on the part of deceased Sunil Pawar in This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{13} 1821-18.docthe accident. The said finding being contrary to the evidence onrecord and settled position of law, is unsustainable. There is nomerit in the submission of learned advocate for the InsuranceCompany that there was contributory negligence on the part ofdeceased Sunil Pawar and there was also breach of terms andconditions of the insurance policy, due to which the InsuranceCompany is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.13.In “Jiju Kuruvila” (supra), the Apex Court, in similar facts,has observed :“24.The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown inthe Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash andnegligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehiclescoming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehiclesand its direction etc. depends on number of factors like speed ofvehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at whichone vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one maysuggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but inabsence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion canbe drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver.In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannotgive any specific finding about negligence on the part of anyindividual.”14.In the light of above, the finding of contributory negligencerecorded by the Tribunal can be termed as perverse and thesame appears to be based on surmises and conjectures. Since This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{14} 1821-18.docthe Tribunal has ignored the evidence of the eyewitness (PW-4),the said finding cannot be sustained.15.Though photo copy of driving license of deceased is reliedupon in the Tribunal, the same cannot be faulted with, as theInsurance Company has failed to examine RTO officer, in supportof their claim that deceased Sunil Pawar was not holding validdriving licence at the time of the accident. There is no merit inthe submission of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal haserred in relying on the photocopy of the driving license ofdeceased Sunil Pawar, as the Insurance Company has failed tochallenge the same by examining RTO officer. 16.So far as income of deceased Dilip Pawar is concerned, it isthe case of the claimants that he was contractor by occupationand was doing work of construction of percolation tanks in watersupply scheme in different agencies. Though no licence being acontractor is placed on record, by examining PW-2 BabasahebPandit Gosavi, the claimants have proved the occupation of thedeceased Dilip. PW-2 Babasaheb has deposed in his evidencethat in the year 2008, deceased Dilip received amounts videExhibits-50 to 54 for carrying out work of repair of water supplyschemes of Ambit and Kumshet Gram Panchayats. The Tribunalhas held that it is not sufficient to assess income of the deceased This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{15} 1821-18.docDilip at the time of his death. It is further held that deceasedDilip did not possess licence for working as contractor and anytechnical education to do the contract work. The Tribunal hashowever, accepted the fact that deceased Dilip was doing skilledwork and, therefore, proceeded to hold his notional income atRs.4000/- per month, in view of decision in “NationalInsurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi” 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).Assessment of notional income of deceased Dilip Pawar bythe Tribunal is wrong. In “Chameli Devi and Others V/s JivrllMian and Others” AIR Online 2010 SC 1220, the accidentwas of the year 2001 and notional income of the deceased inthat case was assessed at Rs.7000/- per month. Deceased wascarpenter and no proof was given to show that he was workingas a carpenter. The Apex Court held that no such proof can begiven when the person is working as a carpenter. Still notionalincome of the deceased was considered to be Rs.7000/- permonth and compensation was accordingly granted. 17.This Court, in First Appeal No. 2866 of 2021, relying on“Chameli Devi’s” judgment (supra), in similar facts, whereindeceased was a licensed electrician, held that the deceasedbeing a skilled worker, assessed his notional income at Rs.9000/-per month. This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{16} 1821-18.docSince in the present case, the Tribunal has held thatdeceased Diilp Pawar was a skilled worker, his notional incomeneeds to be considered at Rs.9000/- per month. 18.It appears from the record that MACP No. 200 of 2008 wasfiled on 15th October, 2008, issues were framed on 19thNovember, 2010. Thereafter, claimants filed evidence affidavit ofthe witnesses on 20th March, 2014, i.e. after a delay of threeyears. Claimant Chandrakala was examined on 3rd November,2014. PW-2 Babasaheb Gosavi was examined on 15th January,2015 and thereafter, evidence was closed on the same day.Insurance Company examined witness Sunil Bharadwaj from theIncome Tax Department on 29th July, 2016 and filed evidenceclose purshis. Eyewitness Bhaskar Yelmame was examined on 3rdAugust, 2017 on behalf of the claimants, and he was crossexamined on the same day. Thereafter, evidence closer purshiswas filed by the claimants on the same day. The claimants havefiled written notes of arguments on 20th December, 2016 and theTribunal has passed the Judgment & Award on 30th January,2018.From the above, the delay in decision of the claim petitioncannot be solely attributable to the claimants. At the most theclaimants in First Appeal No. 1821 of 2018 can be deprived of the This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{17} 1821-18.docinterest for the period of 3 years between 19th November, 2010till 24th March, 2014, during which period they failed to leadevidence. The Tribunal is not justified in denying interest for theremaining period to the claimants. 19.MACP No. 225 of 2008 was filed 18th November, 2008.Issues were framed on 19th November, 2010. The claimants ledtheir evidence on 24th February, 2014 and closed their evidenceon 31st August, 2017. The Tribunal deducted interest for theperiod of 4 years, during which period the claimants failed tolead evidence. No fault can be found with the same, as the saiddelay is attributable to the claimants.20.Learned advocate for the claimants is right in contendingthat the Tribunal has failed to grant appropriate future prospectsin case of deceased Dilip Pawar in terms of the ratio of the ApexCourt in “National Insurance Company Limited V/s PranaySethi” 2017 SCC Online SC 1270. So also Rs.40,000/- perhead needs to be granted to the claimants towards consortiumand since there being 6 claimants an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-needs to be awarded to claimants in FA No. 1821 of 2018 andRs.1,20,000/- to the claimants, being three in number, in FA No.2094 of 2019 towards consortium. The Tribunal has also failed toaward compensation under the head Transportation expenses, This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{18} 1821-18.docand hence the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towardstransportation charges.21.For the aforestated reasons, the claimants are entitled forfollowing compensation:FIRST APPEAL NO. 1821 OF 2018S.N.HEADSAMOUNT01Loss of dependency (9000X12X15)16,20,000/-0240% future prospects 16,20,000 X 40%22,68,000/-03Minus 1/4 towards personal expenses (22,68,000/- -5,67,000/-)17,01,000/-04Loss of Estate15,000/-05Loss of Consortium2,40,000/-06Funeral Expenses15,000/-07Transportation Charges15,000/-08Total Compensation 19,86,000/-09Compensation granted by MACT7,00,000/-10Enhanced compensation 12,86,000/-FIRST APPEAL NO. 2094 OF 2019 S.N.HEADSAMOUNT01Loss of dependency including 50% future prospectsminus 1/3 towards personal expenses30,89,460/-02Loss of Estate15,000/-03Loss of Consortium1,20,000/-04Funeral Expenses15,000/-05Transportation Charges15,000/-06Total Compensation 32,54,460/-07Compensation granted by MACT22,11,700/-08Enhanced Compensation 10,42,760/- This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{19} 1821-18.doc22.In the result following orderORDERA.First Appeal No.1821 of 2018 is partly allowed withproportionate costs. Impugned Judgment and Award dated30th January, 2018 passed in MACP No. 200 of 2008 byMember, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangamner, ismodified to the effect that the claimants are held entitledfor enhanced compensation of Rs.12,86,000/- along withinterest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claimpetition till realization of the entire compensation amount,excluding the period from 19th November, 2010 to 20thMarch, 2014. B.First Appeal No. 2094 of 2019 is partly allowed withproportionate costs. Impugned Judgment and Award dated29th March, 2018 passed in MACP No. 225 of 2008 byMember, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangamner ismodified to the effect that the claimants are held entitledfor enhanced compensation of Rs.10,42,760/- along withinterest @ 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition tillrealization of the entire compensation amount, lessinterest for the period of four years. This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{20} 1821-18.docC.Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to depositthe amount of compensation, along with interest in theTribunal, within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of writ ofthis judgment in the Tribunal.D.First Appeals No. 2093 of 2019 and 3142 of 2019, filed bythe Insurance Company are dismissed.E.Rest of the Award is maintained. F.Claimants to pay court fee on enhanced compensation asper rules. G.In view of disposal of the first appeals, pending civilapplications are disposed of. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI]JUDGE drp/1821-18.doc
Arguments
This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{2} 1821-18.docBengaluru (Karnataka State)2.The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Company Ltd., Swatantra Chowk, Sangamner, Taluka – Sangamner, District - Ahmednagar.......Mr. Rajendra L. Kute, Advocate for the appellantsMr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for respondent No.2....…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.3142 OF 2019The New India Assurance Company Ltd., APPELLANTD. O. No.1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad,Through its Authorized Signatory,Achyut s.o Purushottam Kulkarni, Age – 57 years, Occ – ServiceR/o AurangabadVERSUS1.Smt. Chandrakala w/o Dilip Pawar RESPONDENTSAge – 42 years, Occ – HouseholdR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar2.Jaishri d/o Dilip Pawar,Age – 23 years, Occ – Education R/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar3.Pravin s/o Dilip PawarAge – 22 years, Occ – Education R/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar4.Sandip s/o Dilip PawarAge – 20 years, Occ - EducationR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict – Ahmednagar5.Baburao s/o Rambhau PawarAge – 65 years, Occ – AgricultureR/o Mogras, Taluka – Akole This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{3} 1821-18.docDistrict – Ahmednagar6.Shakuntala w/o Baburao PawarAge – 60 years, Occ – HouseholdR/o Mogras, Taluka – AkoleDistrict - Ahmednagar7.N. K. Kumarasamy s/o Natrajan Age – 50 years, Occ – Truck OwnerR/o No. 8, S. S. C. Building, 1-Main, A. V. Road, Chamraj Peth,Bengaluru (State - Karnataka ).......Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for the appellantMr.R. L. Kute , Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6 - claimants....…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.2094 OF 20191.Smt. Sangita Sunil PawarAPPELLANTSAge – 30 years, Occ – Household2.Kunal Sunil Pawar,Age – 7 years, Occ – Educatio3.Chetan Sunil PawarAge – 6 years, Occ – EducationNos. 2 and 3 are minors through Legal Guardian Appellant No.1, MotherAll R/o Sharmgatha Colony, Ekta Chowk, Behind Law College, SangamnerDistrict – AhmednagarVERSUS1.N. K. Kumarasamy s/o Natraja RESPONDENTSAge – Major, Occ – Truck OwnerR/o 8, S. S. S. Building, 1- Main A. V. Road, Chamraj Peth,Banglore Karnataka 2.Branch Manager,New India Assurance Company Ltd., Swatantra Chowk, Sangamner, Taluka – Sangamner, District - Ahmednagar This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{4} 1821-18.doc.......Mr. Rajendra L. Kute, Advocate for the appellantsMr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for respondent No.2....…WITHFIRST APPEAL NO.2093 OF 2019The New India Assurance Company Ltd., APPELLANTD. O. No.1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad,Through its Authorized Signatory,Achyut s.o Purushottam Kulkarni, Age – 57 years, Occ – ServiceR/o AurangabadVERSUS1.Smt. Sangita Sunil PawarRESPONDENTSAge – 30 years, Occ – Household2.Kunal Sunil Pawar,Age – 7 years, Occ – Educatio3.Chetan Sunil PawarAge – 6 years, Occ – EducationNos. 2 and 3 are minors through Legal Guardian Appellant No.1, MotherAll R/o Sharmgatha Colony, Ekta Chowk, Behind Law College, SangamnerDistrict – Ahmednagar4.N. K. Kumarasamy s/o Natrajan EXEMPTEDAge – Major, Occ – Truck OwnerR/o No. 8, S. S. S. Building, 1-Main A. V. Road, Chamraj Peth,Bengaluru (State - Karnataka).......Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for the appellantMr.R. L. Kute , Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 - claimants....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] RESERVED ON : 18 th SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 1 st OCTOBER, 2024 This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{5} 1821-18.docJUDGMENT:1.All these first appeals arise out of the same accident.Hence, they were heard together and are being decided by thiscommon judgment. First Appeals No. 1821 of 2018 and 2094 of 2019 are filedby claimants, challenging Judgment and Award dated 30thJanuary, 2018 Passed by learned Member, Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Sangamner in MACP No. 200 of 2008 and dated 29thMarch, 2018 in MACP No. 225 of 2008, seeking enhancement ofcompensation. Insurance Company challenged the said Judgments andAwards, by filing First Appeals No. 3142 of 2019 and 2093 of2019. 2.Brief facts, giving rise to present First Appeals can bestated thus; on 1st August, 2008 Dilip Baburao Pawar wastravelling to Sangamner from Samsherpur on motorcycle drivenby Sunil Pawar. Near Vikas Dhaba, on Nashik-Sangamner Road, atGhulewadi, a truck bearing registration No. KA-02-D-7567, hittheir motorcycle. Both the motorcycle riders died in the saidaccident. Claimants, therefore, filed claim petitions. Appellantsin First Appeal No. 1821 of 2018 filed MACP No. 200 of 2008 and This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{6} 1821-18.docappellants in First Appeal No. 2984 of 2919 filed MACP No. 225 of2008, claiming compensation.3.Tribunal partly allowed MACP No. 200 of 2008 and awardedcompensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the dependents of deceasedDilip Pawar, along with simple interest @ 8 % p.a. for the periodof 3 years during the pendency of application and further tillrealization of the entire amount of compensation.The Tribunal partly allowed MACP No. 225 of 2008 andawarded compensation of Rs.22,11,700/- to dependents of SunilPawar, along with simple interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from thedate of petition till realization of entire amount of compensationby deducing interest for a period of four years. 4.Claimants have filed appeals for enhanced compensationand Insurance Company has filed appeals challenging thejudgments and Awards passed in favour of claimants. 5.Heard learned advocate for the claimants and learnedadvocate for the Insurance Company. perused the Record andProceedings and the impugned judgments and awards so alsothe citations relied on by the learned advocates.6.Learned advocate for appellants in First Appeal No. 1821 of2018 submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing notional This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{7} 1821-18.docincome of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month, when deceasedDilip Pawar, being driver, was a skilled worker and his income atleast should be held to be Rs.9000/- per month. In support of thesaid submission, learned advocate relied on judgment of thisCourt in First Appeal No. 2866 of 2021. He submits that theTribunal has awarded future prospects @ 25 % only, whichconsidering the age of the deceased ought to have beenawarded at the rate of 40%. He submits that the Tribunal haswrongly considered age of the deceased between 41 to 45 years,when in the Postmortem report, age of deceased Dilip Pawar isstated as 39 years and accordingly multiplier of 15 would applyin the facts of the present case. He further submits that theTribunal is not justified in awarding simple interest only for aperiod of 3 years. He submits that the delay in deciding the claimpetition cannot be solely attributed to the claimants and theclaim petition was pending for a period of 10 years. The Tribunalhas granted consortium of Rs.40,000/- only, which should beRs.40,000/- to each of the claimant i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- for sixclaimants. Amount of Transportation is also not granted by theTribunal. He, therefore, seeks enhancement of compensation.7.In support of First Appeal No. 2094 of 2019, learnedadvocate for the appellants submits that in connected matter,entire negligence of the Truck Driver was held, however, in the This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{8} 1821-18.docpresent matter, 30% contributory negligence of the deceasedSunil Pawar was held by the Tribunal, which is contrary to theevidence on record. He submits that there is no pleading on thepart of the insurance company in the written statement thatthere was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, inspite of that the Tribunal has erroneously proceeded to hold thatthere was 30% contributory negligence on the part of thedeceased Sunil Pawar. He submits that the claimants examinedeyewitness to the accident and his evidence is not at alldiscussed by the Tribunal. By relying on decision of the SupremeCourt in “Jiju Kuruvila and Others V.s Kunjujamma Mohanand Others” AIR 2023 SC 2293, he submits that finding ofcontributory negligence on the part of the deceased Sunil Pawar,recorded by the Tribunal is wrong. According to him, the accidentis caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the TruckDriver. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded loss ofconsortium of only Rs.40,000/-. According to him, when there are3 claimants, amount of Rs.40,000/- to each claimant i.e.Rs.1,20,000/- ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal forloss of consortium. He further submits that no transportationexpenses are awarded by the Tribunal and the Tribunal haswrongly deducted interest for the period of 4 years.8.Learned advocate for Insurance Company, on the other This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{9} 1821-18.dochand, strenuously opposed First Appeals No.1821 of 2018 and2094 of 2019 stating that the accident is of the year 2008 andthe deceased driver Dilip Pawar cannot be said to be a skilledworker. He submits that the Insurance Company has examinedwitness. The Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income ofdeceased Dilip Pawar. He submits that no PAN Card of deceasedDiilp Pawar was placed on record and the alleged eyewitness,examined by the claimants, cannot be said to be an eyewitnessto the accident. He submits that since the accident has takenplace in the middle of the road, there is clearcut contributorynegligence on the part of deceased Sunil Pawar, rider of themotorcycle. He submits that for 10 years, the claim petitionswere pending before the Tribunal and the delay is attributable tothe claimants and hence, the Tribunal has awarded interest onthe compensation payable to the claimants in First Appeal No.1821 of 2018 for the period of 3 years and has rightly deductedinterest on the compensation payable to the claimants in FirstAppeal No. 2094 of 2019. According to him, no case is made outby the claimants to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.He submits that since the accident has taken place in the middleof the road, in fact, there is 50% contributory negligence on thepart of deceased Sunil. There was breach of terms of the policy.He further submits that considering the delay on the part of the This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{10} 1821-18.docclaimants to lead evidence after framing of the issues, theTribunal is justified in deducting interest, on the compensationpayable to claimants.9.Accident and death of Dilip Pawar and Sunil Pawar in thesame is not in dispute. Admittedly, in the Postmortem report ofdeceased Dilip Pawar, his age is shown as 39 years. The Tribunalhas observed that the claimants did not produce any documentto prove the age of deceased Dilip Pawar. Then, merely becausethe Insurance Company has challenged the age of deceasedDilip, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that, “In the facts, I believethe age of deceased in the age group of 41-45. Thus, themultiplier in this case would be of “14”. Obviously, the saidobservation of the Tribunal is based on surmises and conjecturesand the same is contrary to the record. Without assigningjustifiable reason, the Tribunal has proceeded, on its own belief,to hold that age of the deceased Dilip Pawar was in the agegroup of 41-45 years. The said finding, since is contrary to therecord, cannot be sustained. In view of the Postmortem report,age of deceased Dilip Pawar needs to be held as 39 years and,therefore, multiplier applicable in the case of deceased DilipPawar will be of “15”, in view of the ratio laid down by the ApexCourt in “Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others V/s Delhi TransportCorporation and Another” (2009) 6 SCC 131. This Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 23.10.2024{11} 1821-18.doc10.It is a matter of record that claimants examined BhaskarKarbhari Yelmame (PW-4), for proving negligence of the driver ofthe offending truck. PW-4 has deposed that on the fateful day, at7.30 p.m. he, along with his friend was going to Sudhir Dhaba fordinner. They were riding on a motorcycle on Shrirampur-Nashikroad. That time Truck bearing No. KA-02-D-7567 overtook theirmotorcycle in high speed and while doing so, it went to wrongside of the road and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Hehas admitted in his cross-examination that width of the road is35 to 40 feet. Ignoring his evidence, the Tribunal, in MACP No.225 of 2008 proceeded to rely upon the spot Panchanama,observing that, “The spot panchnama is always a substantialdocument to assess the negligence in case of vehicularaccident.” Then by discussing the narratives in the spotpanchanama, particularly the fact that, “The blood stains werefound 4 feet away from the white strip in the middle of the roadtowards eastern side”, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that themotorcycle was plying almost leaving 16 feet road on its leftside. It is further observed, “If the two wheelers run in such afashion then how can the heavy vehicles move on the road. Itcan give anxious moments to all. It is also noted that thedeceased was not wearing helmet and he sustained injuries tohis head. …… For want of specific evidence to prove the