4. Upon hearing Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company and perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the Tribunal while discussing under Issue No.1 has though opined against the evidence adduced by P.W.2 – another eye-witness to the accident, still has failed to give any concrete finding with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. It is seen that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the deceased was the pillion rider, who fell down due to the negligence of the driver. Against the same, the FIR, chargesheet and other police papers reveals that upon investigation by the Police, it was found that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle. The owner by coming to the witness box examined himself as OPW-1 and as per him, he gave the motorcycle to one Sisir Kumar Bhoi. Upon a detailed discussion, the learned Tribunal has though doubted the story advanced by the claimants about the fact that the deceased was riding as a pillion in the motorcycle at the time of accident, but has failed to give any conclusive finding with regard to negligence on the part of any other alleged driver of the motorcycle other than the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal at the end has concluded that the owner is vicariously liable to pay the compensation amount to the extent of 50%, indemnifiable by the insurer.
