The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the principles governing the onus of proof in cases of tyre burst, which led to the court's conclusion of rash and negligent driving of the car.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals and cross-objections arise out of the same accident, that occurred on 9-9-1973 at about 8-30 A. M. On the Chikodi Mudalgi Road near Bhandiwad cross. The original respondent-2 Babasab was driving the taxi, according to the claimants, in as rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the front right tyre burst and the taxi left the road went on its off-side and turned somersault, as a result of which the two passengers in the taxi namely, Patil and Shinde died on the spot. M. V. C. No. 49/1973 was instituted by the widow and minor children of Patil claiming compensation of Rs. 70,000 from the respondents. The widow and minor sons of Shinde instituted M. V. C. No. 50/1973 claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000 from the respondents. The respondents are the same in both cases, respondent-1 is the owner of the car and respondent-2 is the driver. The respondents contested the claim. According to them, the accident was inevitable. The tyres were new. The front right wheel tyre burst, as a result of which, the driver lost his control over the vehicle. The vehicle turned somersault. Hence, they contended that they were not liable to pay compensation. The petitioners in the two cases examined themselves to prove the petition averments. As against that, the driver of the taxi, the original respondent-2 was examined as D. W. 1. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the taxi, and in that view, it awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 in M. V. C. No. 49/1973 and Rs. 3, 500 in M. V. C. No. 50/1973 by its Judgment and Award dated 16th November, 1976. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondents have instituted M. F. As. Nos. 63 and 67 of 1977. The claimants in M. V. C. No 50/1973 have filed cross-objections and the claimants in M. V. C. No. 49/1973 have instituted M. F. A No. 608/1978 claiming higher compensation. Since all these arise out of the same accident and arise out of the common judgment, these cases were clubbed together and arguments were heard.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in M. V. As. Nos. 63 and 67 of 1977 vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car. He submitted that there was a sudden tyre burst, though the tyre was new, and as such, the driver was helpless in the matter. He submitted that it should be taken as an inevitable accident. He also submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded in the two cases were high. As against that, the counsel appearing for the claimants in two cases while supporting the reasoning of the Tribunal and its finding that the accident was the result of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the taxi, further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded in the two cases was very low. We were taken through the evidence and the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal. The points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in these appeals and cross-objections are:

(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car in question ? and (2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded in the two cases is just and proper ?

( 3 ) THE driver of the taxi is examined as D. W. 1 According to him, when he was proceeding on the road, he heard the sound 'dhab' from the right side tyre, then he could not control the vehicle because there was a burst of the front right wheel tyre. He has further stated that as a result of the tyre burst, the car titled down and turned turtle. The two passengers died. He has further deposed that the tyres had been purchased about one month prior to the accident and he had run about 2,000 miles. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from him as follows:

"i do not know where the respondent-1 had purchased new tyres. The new tyres had been go