16. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the written statement averring that the allegations made against the driver of the vehicle were totally false and the deceased himself was negligent on his part. It was averred that the allegations of the claimants made in the FIR as well as in the statement of the claimants were totally false and without any base. It was denied that the accident was caused due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and it was submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1. It was contended that on the date of the occurrence, the respondent No.1 was driving the alleged offending vehicle at a moderate speed, while complying with all traffic norms and regulations, but at the same time one other truck which was coming from backside of the alleged offending vehicle forcefully hit from backside due to which the vehicle of the respondent No.1 became imbalanced naturally and hit the divider of the road due to which the vehicle turned turtle. If then the vehicle touched or came into contact with any other vehicle, then the same was not due to any act of negligence or mistake on the part of its driver, rather the same was due to the scientific reason of force, which was given by the other truck, which was coming from the backside of the vehicle of the respondent No.1. It was averred that it was very natural that when the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was hit by the truck from behind, then all of a sudden, the balance of the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was unhandled and he himself became unconscious and sustained many injuries on his body, therefore neither he nor any other person could see the number of that actual offender truck, who remained as villain in the case. It was contended that the respondent No.1 himself sustained injuries in the accident and was medically examined at Army
