RW1 has to be considered, it is incumbent on his part to make consistent statement before all the authorities and all the persons who recorded his statements/evidence. That apart, it is not in dispute that police laid charge sheet against RW1 and that the contents of the charge sheet till now remains unchallenged. Except the evidence of RW1, there is no material on record to show that the deceased was riding the motor cycle either in a rash and negligent manner or without wearing helmet or by keeping the cotton box on his bike. Without concrete evidence in respect of these facts, the appellant cannot succeed to establish his version that the deceased was at fault. It is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that RW1 admitted in his cross examination that he gave statement before the depot Manager that the deceased Shashikanth was riding his motorcycle while using his mobile. If that version was true, RW1 ought to have stated same fact before the Court, but he did not do so, and he projected a different version. Having considered all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability against the appellant.
