(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant restricted his challenge in the appeal to the contributory negligence, as found by the High Court. It is argued that despite the testimony of an eyewitness being believed and also noticing the fact that there cannot be any other evidence to clearly bring out as to which of the vehicles were driven negligently, the High Court found contributory negligence of 50% on the deceased-driver of the car.
(3.) Mr. Manu Luv Shalia, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the inspection report of the alleged offending vehicle, a truck, clearly indicates from the damage caused to the vehicle that in all probability, the car was driven rashly and negligently.