Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that as the charge sheet ha
d been submitted against the rider of the motor cycle, learned Tribunal erred in holding that
the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing no.OR-09-E/4221 was rash and negligent in
causing the accident. It is further submitted that in absence of any clear and cogent evidence
with regard to the factum of accident, learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that the
driver of the offending was rash and negligent in causing the accident.
Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1, while supporting the impugned award s
ubmits that the same having been passed on appreciation on the materials available on record,
no interference is warranted. It is further submitted that as the Insurance Company had not fi
led the charge sheet before the learned Tribunal, the plea now raised by the Insurance Company
that the rider of the motor cycle had been charged sheeted cannot be accepted.
On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has taken into
consideration the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, including the police papers,
in coming to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing no.OR-09-E/4221 wa
s rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, which cannot be faulted.
Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the findings of the learned Tribun
al as given in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, no impropri
ety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant
any interference in this appeal.
