dragged to about a distance of 10 to 15 feet and his hand was crushed under the wheel of the truck. The cross-examination had been undertaken about the length of the road and as to how the accident could not have been taken place in the manner in which it was stated by the claimant. PW4-Prem Singh gave evidence about the incident but his evidence was also rejected since there was a material contradiction about the direction in which the vehicle was coming. PW4 was asked about which side of the vehicle the rope was hanging and how the cyclist got entangled and his own evidence was that he was dragged to about a distance of about 20 to 25 feet and that people had collected immediately after the accident took place. A hair-splitting reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and the extreme forensic exercise that it had undertaken in a res ipsa loquitur situation leaves much to be desired. It was a wholly insensitive approach for a judge to say that the negligence was not established in a case where even the driver of the truck did not take courage to go to the witness stand to counter the version given by the claimant and his witness. Even a contradiction between the claimant and the witness about the direction in which the vehicle was travelling, in my view, would be wholly irrelevant, if he looks at the issue from the larger perspective of whether the accident like this resulting in an amputation could have been possible without there having been negligence on the part of the driver. Most significantly, in this case, there was no denial of the involvement of the truck in the accident. In my view that ought to be concluded the issue for proof of negligence of the driver. I, therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold the driver of the insured's vehicle to be
