In summary proceedings under the MV Act, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies, and strict rules of pleading and evidence are not applicable. The burden is on the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than their own negligence.

1. By this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [For short, hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”], appellants / original claimants are challenging the judgment and award dated 3-11- 2009, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in M.A.C.P. No. 138/2005, thereby rejecting claim for compensation led by appellants/original claimants on account of death of Kalyan Kothi in the alleged vehicular accident which took place on 9-9-2004 at Masrat Nagar, Beed. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the truck allegedly involved in the said accident; respondent no.2 is its insurer whereas respondent no.3 was allegedly working as driver on the said truck on the date of the accident. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in their original capacity.

2. Brief facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus :-

(a) Initially claimants who are dependent legal representatives of deceased Kalyan Kothi filed the petition under Section 163A of the MV Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Kalyan Kothi as per structured formula contending that he died because of accident arising out use of motor vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.MH-15/AG-1870 [For short, hereinafter referred to as “the truck”] owned by respondent no.1, insured with respondent no.2 and driven by respondent no.3 at the relevant time. It was alleged therein that deceased Kalyan Kothi was earning monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-. After due trial, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, initially on 30-3-2007 allowed that claim petition and directed respondents to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 3,91,000/- to claimants on the basis of structured formula.

(b) Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company carried that award in appeal bearing First Appeal No. 979 of 2007. This Court by judgment and order dated 19-6-2008 was pleased to allow that appeal by holding that the social security provision as envisaged in Section 163A of the MV Act is available for a distinct class of persons whose annual income is restricted to Rs. 40,000/-. It was held that the persons of that category can only take benefit of said social security provision which was enacted by the legislature with the specific object of providing a speedy and effective remedy to that particular class of persons. As income of deceased was pleaded to be Rs. 48,000/- per annum, this Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 30th March 2007 and remanded the claim petition with a permission to convert the claim under Section 163A into a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act. The operative part of the said judgment and order needs re-production and it reads thus :-

“19. Hence I pass the following order :

(i) The impugned judgment and award dated 30th March 2007 is quashed and set aside and M.A.C.P. No. 138/05 is restored.

(ii) On an application being made by the claimants, the learned Member of the Tribunal will allow the claimants to carry out necessary amendments to the claim petition for converting the claim petition into a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(iii) It will be open for the respondents in the claim petition to file their written statements or to file supplementary written statements by adopting the earlier written statements which are already on record.

(iv) The claim petition shall be decided expeditiously.

(v) All contentions of the parties including various contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal are kept open.

(vi) The appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs.

(vii) In view of this judgment, it will be open for the appellant to withdraw the sums of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs.4,68,624/- deposited in this Court.

(viii) Pending civil applications are disposed of. ”

(c) After remand, claimants were allowed to effect necessary amendments to the claim petition under orders of this Court for converting the cl