the driver. He submits that in the claim petition, the owner and driver were impleaded along with the insurance company and a reply was filed on behalf of the owner and driver and they admitted the involvement of truck no.RNN 9882 in the accident. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have decided otherwise. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the truck was duly insured with the insurance company and the insurance company did not lead any evidence with regard to the issue no.3 relating to the liability of the insurance company. The learned Tribunal has decided the issue no.3 as against the insurance company and, therefore, the insurance company has been held liable. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the evidence which has been recorded and also to the written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that AW2 Bastiram has deposed in his evidence that he was working on the same truck along with deceased Kana Ram and while he was loading stones, the driver Sitaram by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently caused the accident. In the cross examination conducted by the advocate of owner and driver, there was no suggestion made that the truck was not involved in the accident. He has on the other hand asserted that his statement was recorded before the ACJM court in the criminal case. With regard to the cross examination conducted by the advocate of the insurance company, he stated that he does not know as to by which vehicle, the accident occurred. He stated that he was a labourer and today, does not know the date and time when the accident occurred and that the deceased was not his relative. At the time when the accident occurred, he was filling up the vehicle with stones. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
