The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and the interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appeal is filed against judgment and award of Claim Petition No.318/2003 which was pending before the MACT, South Goa, Margao. The petition filed by appellant is dismissed by the Tribunal. Both the sides are heard.

2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:

The claimant is a transporter. On 25/04/2003, the claimant collected 12,000 kilo litres of diesel from Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. in the truck standing in the name of his wife and it was to be delivered at Gokak, Karnataka. The number of the truck was GA-02-T-8138. The accident took place at a place known as Durginim Mollem situated at NH-4A within jurisdiction of Mollem Police Station, Sanguem Taluka at about 14.40 hrs. It is the case of the claimant that truck bearing no.GA-01-W-6099 gave dash to the truck tanker of the claimant and the accident was caused by the driver of the truck bearing no.GA-01-W-6099 by driving the truck rashly and negligently. It is contended that another truck bearing no.GA-02-Z-7867 which was following truck no.6099 was also involved in the accident and it also gave dash to the truck in which the claimant was taking diesel to its destination. It is the case of the claimant that the entire diesel was lost in the accident and the value of this diesel was around of Rs.2,68,793/- (Rupees two lacs sixty eight thousand seven hundred and ninety three only), the costs estimated by petroleum company.

3. The claim was made against the drivers, the owners and Insurance Companies of both the aforesaid trucks.

4. The Insurance Company of truck no.6099 filed written statement and contested the matter. It is the case of the Insurance Company that there was no fault on the part of driver of truck no.6099. It is contended that the claimant must have purchased insurance in respect of the goods and so the claimant is not entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company.

5. The Insurance Company of other truck, original respondent no.5 also filed written statement and it also contested the claim by contending that there was no fault on the part of driver of truck no.7867.

6. Only the claimant gave evidence. The Claim Petition is dismissed by holding that the appellant/claimant was not the owner of the goods viz. diesel. It is also held that the claimant failed to prove that the accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the aforesaid two trucks. It is also observed that there is no convincing evidence to prove that entire diesel was lost.

7. As almost all the issues are decided against the claimant, the entire evidence needs to be discussed. For proving the fault of the driver of the aforesaid two trucks, the claimant has relied on the evidence of one Shridar Pujari/AW2, the evidence of some police officers and the record prepared by police. The claimant has no personal knowledge regarding the accident.

8. Shridar Pujari/AW2 has given evidence that he was present in the vicinity of the spot of accident and noticed that truck no.6099 was proceeding towards the side of truck no.8138 and truck no.7867 was following truck no.6099. He has given evidence that the driver of truck no.6099 drove it rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The evidence in cross-examination shows that he knew the claimant from prior to the date of accident as he was working in the hotel of claimant. The hotel is situated at Mollem.

9. Sambaji Talwar/AW4 has given evidence that he was working as Head Constable at Mollem police station at the relevant time and he registered the offence after learning about the incident. He has given evidence that he recorded statements of cleaner of tanker no.8138, driver of truck no.7867 and on the basis of that record he arrested the driver of truck no.6099. His evidence shows that he filed charge sheet against the driver of truck no.6099, Shri Ajay Kerkar, respondent no.1 from Claim Petition. The claimant has not produced copy of the charge sheet to show that his witness Shridha