HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 220 of2005 AppeUant Unitedlndia Insurance Coinpany Ltd, tluough Branch Managcr, Braiich Office Rajetidra Naj^r Chowk, Bflaspur, Tj'ahsU and Distiict- Bilaspur (C.GJ. ] Versus Respondents 1. Smt.JayaattLal^ed33yeara,Wd/o Late Dr. Aiul Lal 2. Anldt Kumar Lal, E^;edlOyears,S/o Late Dr. Aakit Kumar Lal, ay^d. 10 years, S/o Late Dr. Anfl tal, fhrough niotherStnt. Jayanti Lal. 3. Ku. AkanshaLal,age8years,S/o Late Dr.Alul Lal, mmor, fhroi^h inofherSincfc JayaatiLal, aUR/o Shridha Bhavan, Magarpara Road, Bilaspiir, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur. j 4. GoreIaTS/oBaDflloyaiiav,agpd28 years, R/o'Wl]age- Fliulroari, Lormi, PreseittR/oQuarterNo. 2/18, RajkisliEae'N^ar, Bilaspur, Talisil& Distrijctg Bilaspur (G.G.). 5. Anand y^a^wal S/o Radhff SIiyain Jayaswa, aged;40 years, R/o Masariganj, Bilaspur, TaUsil & District- Bi]aspuT(C.G.). 6. NatioiialInsulanccCompanyLtd. Throi^h Branch.MauE^er, Bi^pur Branch, TahaXXmiplex, Vyapar'VSxar Road, Rryadarshm N^ar,Bilaspur. 7. Dr. S. K, LalS/o S. B, Lal, aged 50 years, R/o Magarpara Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsfl & District- Bilaspiu- DB: Hon'blc Shri Justice S. R. Nayak, C.J. & HOnlale Shri Justice Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. . Mr.H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advbeate. ORAL ORDER ' ( 28&N(wember 2005) 1, , Ttus appeal is preferred by the United India IiMiu-ance Company Ltd. The appcUant-coiupaay te insurer of the inotor ear ui which fhc deceased were traveling. - Bl c. y' '^ alcur The Tribitaal hawing appreciated the oral and docuinentaiy evidence adduced by the parties has ree@rded a specific findiag fhat the drvrer of the inotor carwas negUgcnt in;-driviag fhe car' aud ia causing fhe accident resulting in deattt'pf fhree persons. Tfais factual findjng recorded by the Tiibunal caiinot be condemned for want of tegat evidexice. It Was^also finind by fhe Tnbunal fhat not Qnly the driver ofthe car was guiltjr ofactionable negUgence but even thc driver of thc truck (another vehicle) involved in fhc accident was also negligent ia parking the vetucfc without l^ht. Thc Tribunal has apportioncd the liability of paying coinpcnsatk>n betwecn the two Insurance Companjes. The factual findiug recorded by the Tribunal on the issue relatmg to actionable negUgence, in our considered opicuoii, is weU-founded and based on substantive legal evidence and it docs not wacrant aay iaterfercncebyus.It needs to bc noticed that even assuining that on fhe basisOfthccvidence.aaotherplausibIevicwispossible, even fhcn, thc appdlate Court should not upset fhe factual'findnig recorded by the first Court if that fiading is also possibk on fhe basis of the legal evidence on record. No case is naade out wairaating otir iaterfercnce with fhe findiag recorded by tfac Tribunal on the issue. Tfae appeal is merit-lcss and it is accorduigty dismissed with no costs. F Sd/- ChiefJusrice Sd/- s8ttsh^Agniho^ re •u ^%^F^-lt< •