Key Points: - The appeal concerns liability of the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (!) - The Insurance Company contends the deceased was solely responsible or contributory negligent due to intoxication and overload; tribunal allegedly erred in imposing liability. (!) - The court examines contributory negligence, citing Rajrani and Others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2009) and discusses principles from Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Ors. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Evidence shows the offending truck was stationary in a lane for two-wheelers between 9:00 PM and 9:30 PM with no indicators or parking lights, per Investigating Officer (AW-2) and Ex. D12. (!) - The truck driver admitted no rear lights/indicators; truck parked carelessly in the middle of a public road at night, causing hazard. (!) (!) - The Claims Tribunal did not err in holding the accident was not a result of contributory negligence; the driver’s failure to warn was the sole cause. (!) - On these findings, the court dismissed the appeal, holding liability did not rest on contributory negligence by the deceased. (!)

What is the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act when the deceased was allegedly intoxicated and contributed to the accident?

What is the Supreme Court/MAC Tribunal standard for establishing contributory negligence in a collision between a car and truck as discussed in this case?

What is the court's conclusion regarding whether the truck driver's actions or the deceased driver's condition caused the accident?