The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur and the legal provisions under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 were central to the court's decision in determining the liability and compensation in a motor accident claim.

1. Heard both sides.

2. Aggrieved by the direction to pay compensation in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, the original respondent no.3 i.e. the insurer of the truck has preferred the present appeal.

3. Present respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the parents of the deceased Santoshkumar had filed the claim petition. They pleaded that on 10/2/1995 while deceased Santoshkumar was proceeding by his scooter bearing no.MH-20-G-4742 to Nawabpura area from CIDCO by Jalna Road in Aurangabad city, at that time, near Seven Hill "T" point, a goods truck bearing registration no. MRL-2007 gave dash to the said scooter. The accident had occurred due to the high speed of the truck as the truck driver i.e. the present respondent no.4-Dharmaji was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner.

4. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants submitted that the deceased was only 25 years old at the time of his untimely death. He was initially working with M/s. Vishnu Vijay Packages Pvt. Ltd. as an Accountant and thereafter he was given promotion as Accounts Officer and he was drawing salary of Rs.55000/-per year. Besides the salary, he also used to get bonus and other benefits. Besides this, he was also maintaining accounts for several individuals and from that source, he was getting Rs.30,000/- per year. Thus, his total income was Rs.85,000/-per year. He was spending an amount of Rs.15,000/-per year for himself and was keeping the remaining amount for his family and the family was benefited to the tune of Rs.70,000/-per year. The petitioners were dependent upon the earning of the deceased. The deceased would have given the benefit of his earning to the parents atleast for a period of 1520 years and in the circumstances, the monetary loss of Rs.7 Lakh was claimed by applying multiplier of 20 years to the loss of Rs.70,000/- per year.

5. The truck driver as well as the owner remained absent in the proceedings. The present appellant i.e. respondent no.3 contested the petition. It was submitted that during the period of accident, one side of the road was closed for repairs and the the traffic was permitted only from one side i.e. from the southern side of the road. Therefore, though the truck was proceeding from this lane, it cannot be said that the truck was from the wrong side. It was therefore submitted that the accident had not occurred due to any rash or negligent driving of the truck.

As regards the compensation, all the pleadings made by the claimants were denied. It was also submitted that as parents themselves had pleaded that they were agriculturists and were not dependent on the deceased, no compensation can be paid to them.

6. Before the learned Member, certified copy of the FIR, panchanama of spot of occurrence and copy of cover note was pressed into service. No oral evidence on the occurrence of the accident was led by any of the parties.

On the basis of the recitals in the complaint, as well as the certified copy of the panchanam of the spot of occurrence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the entire traffic was moving from one side of the road, it was still the duty of the truck driver to be cautious while driving the truck from his side and, therefore, it was held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck.

7. As regards the quantum of the compensation, the claimants have examined one Mahesh Deshpande, an employee of the firm where the deceased was serving. He deposed that the deceased was a Accounts Clerk and was getting salary of Rs.3900/- per month and after deductions, his net salary was Rs.3622/-per month. The certificate in this regard was proved at Exhibit 41. Besides this, leave travel allowance, medical allowance and bonus was considered and the witness stated that the deceased used to get around Rs.74,000/- to Rs.75,000/-per annum.

8. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was contributing around Rs.900/- per month for each