The main legal point established is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the duty of care expected from drivers, and the standard of proof in accident claim cases.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. C. a. Coutinho for the appellant and Mr. U. R. Timble for respondent no.6.

2. Mr. Coutinho submits that all the respondents in this matter have been duly served. Since the accident, in this case, took place on 24.12.2011, there is no point in adjourning this matter any further.

3. The appellants-claimants, i.e., the parents, wife, and three minor daughters, then aged 4, 2, and 1, respectively, of late Jalander Jadhav, challenge the impugned judgment and award dated 13.02.2015 by which the Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) determined compensation payable to them at Rs.30,18,000/- but dismissed the claim petition on the specious plea that the claimants failed to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no.2, i.e., the driver of the tipper truck bearing registration no.Ga-09-U-0257.

4. The Tribunal, in this case, has exonerated the driver of the Tata Tipper Truck bearing registration no.Ga-08-U-1613 is the other truck that was alleged to be involved in the accident. Such exoneration need not be revisited based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the documents at Exh.41 and the deposition of the Head Constable Shri Sudhakar Fal Dessai, who was examined as aW2.

5. However, the Tribunal has held that the claimants have failed to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Tipper truck bearing registration no.Ga-09-U-0257 and this finding, with respect, suffers from serious errors bordering perversity. The entire reasoning is to be found in paragraphs 18 and 19, which are reproduced for the convenience of reference:-

"18. In the sketch it is shown that the Motorcycle of the deceased is in between the front and the rear driver's side wheels of the truck. The Motorcycle is also close to the front wheel. The accident spot with some blood marks is shown perpendicular to the length of Motorcycle and on its right hand side as one proceeds from Dabal to Sanvordem.From this position of these vehicles, it is difficult to know how the accident had occurred. It is possible that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the deceased himself. There are also no brake marks nor skid marks behind either the Motorcycle or the truck bearing no.Ga-09-U-0257. In case the said truck was in a fast speed and had applied brakes, there would have been at least brake marks behind the said truck.

19. From the sketch, it is not possible to know on account of whose rash and negligent driving the accident had occurred. There is no eye witness to the accident. The Motorcycle is also lying on the right hand side of the truck bearing no.Ga-09-U-0257 which was proceeding in the same direction as that of the Motorcycle of the deceased. The width of the road is 6.50 metres. The right hand side wheels of said truck are at a distance of about 4.00 to 4.7 metres from the right edge of the road. From this position of the vehicles, it appears that the deceased was overtaking the said truck. The possibility of he giving a dash whilst overtaking cannot be ruled out. Other possibility of the said truck giving dash to the Motorcycle on account of rash driving by the driver of the said truck cannot be spelt out from the sketch. There is no ocular evidence of the eye witness to establish how the accident had taken place. as discussed hereinabove, it is difficult to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving either by respondent no.1 and/or respondent no.3. The claimants have, therefore, failed to prove that the accident occurred due rash/negligent driving by respondent no.1 and/or respondent no.3. The issue is, therefore, decided in the negative"

6. apart from several infirmities in the above reasoning, it is pertinent to refer to the surmises and conjectures and the doubts to suggest that the accident may have occurred due to the deceased's rash and negligent riding. In this case, the evidence on record does not admit any scope for even rais