( 1 ) IN these appeals filed by the same appellant, since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) M. A. No. 255 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and the order dated 18. 7. 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby he has held that since the main application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') has been finally disposed of, no order need be passed on the application under section 140 of the Act.

( 3 ) M. A. No. 250 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and the award dated 9. 9. 2005 passed by the same Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under section 166 of the Act whereby he has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants.

( 4 ) ONE Pramod Pal alias Pramod Bha- gat died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 22. 5. 1993. On the said date the deceased was driving truck bearing registration No. UHJ 8305. The deceased lost control over the vehicle, which finally dashed against a big tree standing by the side of the road. Said Pramod Pal was immediately sent to R. M. C. H. , Ranchi for treatment but could not survive.

( 5 ) IT transpires from the record and the impugned judgment and award that after death of the deceased in the accident his father filed application only under section 140 of the Act, which was registered as compensation Case No. 174 of 1993. In the said case both the owner and the insurance company appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim. During the pendency of the case the claimant (father of the deceased) died and the two sisters of the deceased were substituted and they continued the claim case. In 2003,. e. , after 10 years an application under section 166 of the Act was filed by the claimants in the same case,. e. , Compensation Case no. 174 of 1993 claiming some more compensation.

( 6 ) THE Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the claim case on the following grounds:

(i) The deceased Pramod Pal has himself caused accident in question by driving the truck rashly and negligently and died due to his own fault. Hence, claim application claiming compensation for the accidental death of the deceased is not maintainable.

(ii) The two married sisters of the deceased who are the claimants were not dependent on him, claimants have not deposed in their evidence that they have suffered any pecuniary loss on account of death of their brother Pramod Pal.

(iii) The claim application purported to have been filed under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act after 10 years,. e. , in 2003 is also not maintainable.

( 7 ) WE have heard Mr. A. K. Lal, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. G. C. Jha, learned counsel for the insurance company.

( 8 ) BOTH the counsel have made their respective submissions in course of argument when it was asked as to why the parties could not settle the matter outside the court, both the counsel fairly submitted that parties shall accept the decision that may be given by this court. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel and also having regard to the question involved in these appeals, we think it proper to answer the question raised herein.

( 9 ) AS noticed above, Tribunal has held that since the deceased caused accident himself because of his own fault, claimants are not entitled to any compensation. It is well settled that proof of negligence is not the condition precedent in all cases for the grant of compensation. In some cases where cause of accident is not proved then principle of res ipsa loquitur applies and compensation is awarded to the claimants. Similar fact was involved before the Apex court in the case of Pushpabai Purshottam udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing co. , 1977 ACJ 343 (SC ). In that case the vehicle dashed against a tree while going from Nagpur to Pandhurna. The tree against which the car dashed was uprooted about 9 ft to 10 ft fr