The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to prove the involvement of a vehicle in a motor accident case and the application of the maxim 'Res ipsa loquitur' in determining negligence.

1. Heard finally with consent at the admission stage.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, in MACP No.323/2010 dt.2.5.2013, the original claimants have preferred this appeal.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :

i) On 29.9.2010, in between 6 to 6-30 p.m. on Manjari Samangaon road within the limits of village Manjari, Tq. and District Latur, deceased Arjun was hit by a tum tum auto rickshaw bearing registration No.MH-44-A-1084. Deceased Arjun was a pedestrian at the time of accident. After the vehicular accident, deceased was brought to his house in an injured condition in the same auto rickshaw. However, on reaching to the home, he was found dead.

ii) The claimants/legal representatives of deceased Arjun approached the Tribunal by filing MACP No.323/2010 for grant of compensation under the various heads. It has been contended in the claim petition that deceased Arjun at the material time was milk vendor and he was earning Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) p.m. out of the said business. He was also a part time worker in the restaurant on the monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). He was bread-winner of the family and the appellant-claimants were depending on his income. The appellants-claimants have therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) on all the counts.

iv) The Respondent insurer has also strongly resisted the claim petition on the similar grounds and also raised plea of false involvement of the auto rickshaw in the vehicular accident. It has been denied that the said auto rickshaw hit the deceased. In addition to this, the Respondent insurer has also raised a plea of breach of terms and conditions of the policy in the form that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving license at the relevant time.

v) The appellants-claimants have adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of the contentions. The Respondent-owner of the auto rickshaw has examined himself to substantiate his contention. The Respondent-insurer has not adduced any evidence.

vi) The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, by its impugned judgment and award in MACP No.323/2010, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that on the very next day of the accident the appellant/claimant No.1 had lodged the complaint in the concerned Police Station and on the basis of her complaint, Crime No.65/2010 came to registered against the unknown vehicle. The learned counsel submits that though the said crime was initially registered against the driver of the unknown vehicle, it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint that deceased Arjun was brought to his house in injured condition in auto rickshaw by its driver Ajay Kaka Potbhare. The learned counsel submits that Investigating Officer has thoroughly investigated the crime and submitted the charge-sheet Exh.27 against the said Ajay Kaka Potbhare. The learned counsel submits that the appellants-claimants have succeeded in proving the involvement of said vehicle auto rickshaw in a vehicular accident and in the facts and circumstances of the case the maxim "Res ipsa loquitur" squarely applies to the case. Deceased Arjun was a pedestrian and he was given dash by motor vehicle. In the post mortem report Exh.29 the cause of death is due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. Learned counsel submits that the said maxim is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of accident primarily is within the knowledge of the Respondent-owner. The learned counsel submits that the Respondent-owner had not examined his driver Ajay Kaka Potbhare to explain as to how deceased Arjun had sustained the injuries and as to why he was brought to his house in injured condition in said auto rickshaw. Learned counsel submits that