is not a case of head-on collision rather the offending vehicle dashed the motor-cycle from back side. In fact, one of the injured examined as P.W.3 claimed about the accident being hit by the offending Bolero vehicle from back. To counter the same, Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Insurance Company refers to statements of one Prafulla Kumar Rana, Pitabasa Sahu and Babuli Mohapatra recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to satisfy the Court that the motor-cycle had a front collision with the offending vehicle. The copies of the statements of the said witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are produced today in Court and the same are perused. Though, Mr. Samantaray placed reliance on the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but at the end, on closure investigation, it has led to the submission of chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle only without any contributory negligence attributed to the deceased rider of the motor-cycle. No rebuttal evidence was adduced from the side of the Insurance Company, if at all, such was the case with reference to the evidence collected during investigation. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the named witnesses referred to above are not the occurrence witnesses. In any view of the matter, due to like of evidence from the side of Insurance Company on the said aspect, the Court reaches at an inescapable conclusion that the offending vehicle’s driver to be responsible for the alleged accident not the rider of the motor-cycle and there is no contributory negligence as such which is claimed. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the amount on the head of general damages should have been Rs.70,000/- instead Rs.2,77,000/-. Admittedly, such an amount is
