sustained grievous injuries. The evidence tendered before the tribunal particularly Ex.P-02 (MLC Information to Discharge, Neuron Hospital), Ex.P-06 i.e., death report, Ex.P-07 death information sent to the police station, Gaurjhamar, Ex.P-08 FIR, Ex.P-11 i.e., the final report would clearly indicate that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle namely mini truck. However, by relying upon the statement of Naresh, PW-2 the insurer has made an attempt to stave off its liability by contending PW-2 had admitted before the jurisdictional police that deceased had himself fallen on account of his vehicle having fallen due to loss of balance. This statement made by PW2 before the jurisdictional police has found favour with the High Court and thereby disbelieved the plea of the claimants which had been accepted by the Tribunal. However, the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that PW-2 when confronted while being cross-examined with his statement made to the jurisdictional police exhibit D-1 has denied having given such statement. He has also specifically deposed that he has not stated before the police that his father had fallen from the motorcycle on his own accord. He has specifically denied that false complaint has been lodged by the claimant before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police who had recorded the statement (Ex-D1) of PW-2 was not examined. No attempts have been made by the insurer of the offending vehicle to prove the contents of Ex-D1. This is yet another reason as to why the findings recorded by the
