The liability of an insurer in accident claims requires establishing negligence of the opposing party, which was found supported by credible evidence in this case.

1. Heard Mr. H.N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ashish Kadukar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The parties are referred to as they were before the Claims Tribunal.

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in short, are as under:
On 2.10.2004 at about 6 p.m., deceased Suresh Namdeo Sontakke was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. MH 34 - AK 0885 towards village Majri where his brother - in - law resides. When he reached near Urjagram on Chandrapur - Nagpur Road, the offending truck bearing registration No. MH 34 - AB 4061 was standing on the road in idle condition without any indicator and sign. Deceased Suresh could not see the truck and dashed against the said offending truck. The deceased sustained injury on his head and other vital parts of body. He was taken to the General Hospital, Chandrapur where he was declared dead. The said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of the offending truck No. MH 34 - AB 4061. The said truck was owned by respondent No. 2. The said truck was driven by respondent No. 3. It was insured with respondent No. 1 (appellant herein). There was no one on behalf of the deceased on the spot or nearby the spot at the time of accident. Respondent No. 3 / driver of the offending truck lodged false report. The police registered offence vide Crime No. 238 of 2014 against deceased Suresh. The police prepared false panchnama. Though there was no fault on the part of the deceased, he was shown as accused.

4. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation against the owner, driver and insurance company. The insurance company filed written statement and denied the claim. It was submitted by respondent No. 1 (appellant herein) that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the deceased himself and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were served, but they did not appear before the Tribunal. They were proceeded ex parte. The Claims Tribunal framed issues at Exh. 14. The claimant Varsha examined herself at Exh. 15, and another witness, namely, Ashish Sudhakar Pimpalshende at Exh. 32 and closed the case vide pursis, Exh. 35. Respondent No. 1 has only examined Police Head Constable Ramesh Shankar Turankar at Exh. 45. After hearing both the parties, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligent act of driver of the truck. The truck was parked on the road without any parking light, indicator, etc. The deceased could not notice the truck and, therefore, the accident took place. Learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition and directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 30,50,000 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the whole amount. Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the insurance company.

6. Heard Mr. H.N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. He has vehemently argued that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the truck. Learned counsel has pointed out F.I.R. and spot panchnama filed on record respectively at Exhs. 16 and 17 and submitted that, as per these documents, the accident took place due to fault o