vehicles are moving, whether vehicles are maintaining there own lane and speed of the vehicle etc. But, in the present case, the driver of the truck number KA-30/1942 was driving the truck by overtaking the car and dashed another truck bearing No.KA-27/6029. The truck No.KA27/6029 was coming on its direction and has not deviated it’s lane but the driver of the truck bearing No.KA-30/1942 has deviated the lane while in the process of overtaking the car and rammed the other truck. Therefore, this shows the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing No.KA30/1942 by its driver. The driver of the truck bearing No.KA-27/6029 was on his correct lane by maintaining lane discipline. Therefore, upon considering the factum of accident, on the principles of Res Ipsa Loquitur (things speaks itself), it is proved that the driver of the truck bearing No.KA-30/1942 was completely rash and negligent in driving the truck and caused accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has just swayed away the fact that there was head on collusion. Hence, fastened 50% of the rash and negligence on the driver