The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability under the no fault liability principle of S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is intended for third parties and does not extend to the owners themselves.

Thomas, J.

A very peculiar situation has arisen in this case. When a claimant himself is equally answerable to "no fault liability" under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short'the Act') along with another vehicle owner, can the former be given an award to realise compensation from the latter? The question was not easy to answer. Hence we requested Sliri. K.M. Joseph, Advocate, to help us amicus curiae. We thank him for the services rendered.

2. Before we proceed to the question we may decide the first issue whether claimant can get compensation de hors "no fault liability". The bear facts necessary to deal with the issue are Hie following: Claimant was riding a motor cycle from north to south along the public road. A car driven'by the first respondent this wife is the registered owner of the car) was proceeding from the opposite direction. Both the vehicles collided with each other at the accident spot. Appellant fell down and sustained some injuries including fracture of the bones on the left leg. He filed the claim against first respondent, his wife and the insurer for over a lakh of rupees as compensation.

3. Appellant alleged that the accident was the consequence of first respondent's negligence in driving the car. Respondents on the other hand contended that the car was driven through its proper side and the collision took place on account of claimant's negligence in riding the two wheeler.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (lor shortAhe Claims Tribunal') found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. Claim was accordingly dismissedin tolo. However, Claims Tribunal made an assessment of the compensation which claimant could have been awarded had the claim been sustainable. This appeal is by the claimant in challenge of the said award.

5. We have perused the evidence. There is no dispute that the vehicles were found on the western portion of the road soon after the accident. When two vehicles driven from opposite directions collided with each other the spot of occurrence would provide a safe clue for fixing up the factum of negligence. If the collision took place on the side of the road that fact would afford sufficient guidance to infer that the driver of the vehicle which was on the wrong side of the road would have been negligent. Of course, this is only a rebuttable presumption. So upon establishment of that fact the rule of res ipsa loquitur can be followed i.e., "the thing speaks for itself. This is only a rule of evidence which enables the court to determine the burden of proof in certain cases.

6. The leading case on the rule of res ipsa loquitur is Scott v. London and St. kalherine Docks Co. ((1865) 3 H & C 596) Erie C.J., who laid down the rule, has observed in it that where the thing is shown to be under the management of one person and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen the thing would afford reasonable evidence that the accident arose from want of care of that person, unless he can explain otherwise. Evershed M.R. followed and affirmed the above principle in Moore v. R. Fox & Sons ((1956) I.Q. 596). The said principle had been profitably adopted in India also. (Vide Syad Akbar v. State (AIR 1979 SC 1848). A Full Bench of this Court has reiterated it in K.S.E.B. v. Kamalakshy Ammo. (1986 KLT1124).

7. To rebut the presumption envisaged in the rule of res ipsa loquitur learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicles collided with each other at the middle of the road and both moved to the western portion only due to the impact of the collision. This does not appear to be correct because appellant's witness (P.W.2) has said even in chief-examination that the car was driven along the western side of the road which means that the car driver was keeping its proper side.

8. From the above evidence a conclusion is inescapable that collision took place on account of one of the vehicles keeping wrong side. As the car was keepi