P.K. Musahary, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Aizawl District, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT case No. 52 of 2009 awarding compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization from the opposite party/appellant in favour of the claimant. The claim petition was filed by the respondent on 28.8.2009 claiming Rs. 7.5 lacs as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act) stating inter alia that her husband Pu. Lallianthanga, aged about 20 years was killed in a vehicular accident that took place on 2.4.2007 at Rangvamual Farm peng, Aizawl at about 9 a.m. involving one truck bearing registration No. R/N 00ZE-68569 belonging to BRTF which was driven by one D. Prasannan. The claimant alleged that the incident took place due to negligence of the BRTF driver of the appellant/opposite party. As per the claimant her deceased husband was a skilled labour by profession earning Rs. 3900/- per month. The appellant/opposite party contested the claim by filing written statement seeking dismissal of the claim petition on the grounds that it is not maintainable in its present form and style and there is no cause of action or justification for filing the claim petition and it is bad for mis-joinder/non-joinder of parties and the appellant/opposite party has no liability to pay any compensation.

2. In order to establish her claim the claimant examined herself as witness No. 1 and two other witnesses namely Sri Ladinthara and K. Lalthanfala (O.C. Vaivakawn) as witness No. 2 and 3 respectively. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the compensation as stated above.

3. I have heard Mr. S.N. Meitei Learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Thangkanglova, Learned Counsel for the sole respondent/claimant.

4. Mr. Meitei, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although the claim was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, the claimant failed to adduce evidence of fault and negligence of the driver. The claimant is bound to prove fault and negligence of the driver failing which no compensation can be awarded against the driver or the insurance-company. In this regard he relies on the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla, reported in 2007 (2) TAC 11, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kailiana & another, reported in 2003 (1) TAC 177 (Gau). Secondly he submits that the vehicle in question which belonged to the BRTF was not involved in the motor accident and the death of the claimant's husband is not due to accident cause by the truck (vehicle) concerned. It is the case of the appellant/opposite party that the accident took place when the deceased was travelling in a bike bearing registration No. MZ-01 C 0318 without any involvement of the truck. It is also the case of the appellant that the learned tribunal wrongly applied/imported the principle of res-ipsa liquitor holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848. Last of all it was also submitted that the deceased was a pillion rider and the main rider of the bike who is still alive was not examined as a witness by the claimant. He was not even impleaded as a party. The respondent instituted a Court of inquiry to find out the veracity of the involvement and fault of the driver of the vehicle and it was found in the report of the officer who conducted the enquiry that the truck was not at all involved in the alleged incident and there was no fault on the part of its driver. This being the factual and legal position, as submitted by Mr. Meitei, Learned Counsel for t