The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was applied to determine the status of the petitioner and his brother-in-law as passengers in the lorry, influencing the court's decision on liability and compensation.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are disposed of by the following common order as they arise out of the same judgment and award of the accidents claims tribunal, chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in mvc. No. 135/1985.

( 2 ) M. F. A. No. 531/1988 is by the owners of motor vehicle bearing registration mark myc. 3993. Aggrieved by the liability foisted on them jointly and severally to the exclusion of the liability of the insurance company which was the 3rd respondent before the tribunal. Mfa. No. 1068/1990 is by one of the victims of the accidents, aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded as contended by him.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts may be statedand they are as follows. The petitioner appellant in mfa. No. 1068/1990 in the claim petition before the tribunal under sec. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) pleaded that while he and his brother-in-law wore standing near the compound of the building of the Karnataka electricity board at kadur on the Bangalore honnavar road waiting for a passenger bus in order to go to hassan, the lorry bearing registration mark myc 3993 owned by respondents 1 and 2 (the appellants in mfa. No. 531/ 1988) was driven rashly and negligently at great speed from the side of shimoga and collided against them causing him and his brother-in-law serious injuries resulting in the fracture of the femur of his left leg and several other injuries which necessitated his hospitalisation and prolonged treatment. Therefore, ha pleaded that he may be paid compensation for such injury in the sum of Rs. 1,58,000/ -.

( 4 ) BESIDES, the owners who are actually father and son, the insurance company namely, M/s. united India insurance company who had issued a third party risk coverage policy were also made parties to the proceedings.

( 5 ) THE claimants 1 and 2 filed adetailed statement of objections to the petition. It was contended by them specifically that the petitioner and his brother in-law were gratuitous passengers picked up earlier at kadur and the lorry was driven, by one rajagopal, their driver, at a normal speed without any negligence, but the push rod snapped for no apparent reason resulting in the driver loosing control of the vehicle and in that manner the vehicle went to the extreme right of the road and dashed against the compound of the Karnataka electricity board as well as the compound of the hospital building next. As a result of the accident the driver and the passengers in the cabin were injured as the petitioner was a passenger on his own volition he took the risk and therefore they were not liable for the compensation by way of damages and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) THE insurance company, basedon the stand taken by the 1st and 2nd respondent, the owners, took the stand that there was no liability on its part as the policy issued in respect of the vehicle to the insurers (actually insurance had been taken out in the name of the 2nd respondent) did not provide for payment of any compensation to passengers who were not employees of the owner of the lorry within the meaning of that expression under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

( 7 ) ON such pleadings, the tribunal below formulated the following two points for determination. (1) whether respondent No. 2 drove the lorry myc. 3993 belonging to respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and caused injuries to petitioner ? (2) to what compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled ? It held on issue No. 1 in the affirmative and in regard to quantum it awarded Rs. 26,000/- holding respondents 1 and 2, the owners, liable jointly and severally and thereby the defence putforward by the insurance company, the 3rd respondent, in so far as its liability was concerned was upheld. Aggrieved by that finding, as we have earlier narrated, these appeals have been filed.

( 8 ) THE counsel for appellants, we must notice with regret, persistently misled the court practically