The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the burden of proof on the owner and driver to prove that the accident happened due to some other cause than their own negligence.

AMIT RAWAL J.

1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the Tribunal whereby it provided a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under “no fault liability” for death of a male aged 32 years, who died in a motor accident occurred on 15.02.2000 whereas the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on the premise that the claimants have not been able to prove the rashness and negligence of the driver of the tractor. The deceased was sitting on the mud guard of the ill-fated tractor bearing registration No.HR-31-B-0894 alleged to be driven by respondent No.4-Zora Singh rashly and negligently. The driver lost control over the tractor when 2-3 Neel Cows (Roz) suddenly jumped in front of the tractor and in an attempt to save them, the driver swerved the tractor to katcha burm of the road but it turned turtle. The deceased-Rajinder Singh, who was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor fell down and received multiple injuries. He was taken to the hospital but could not survive.

2. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act held that not even a single witness had been examined by the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4-Zora Singh. The accident took place owing to coming of 2-3 Neel Cows in front of the tractor and in order to save them, the accident took place, resulting into death of deceased-Rajinder Singh. Though the Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- but in the absence of proof of rashness and negligence of the driver granted Rs.50,000/- as compensation under “no fault liability”.

3. This Court reserved the case for judgment on 10.07.2017 but after perusing the case file, prima facie, found it to be a case of res ipsa loquitur and vide order dated 09.08.2017 called for the parties to address arguments on the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

4. Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.50,000/- only under 'no fault liability'. Respondent No.4 was driving the tractor at a very high speed and the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving, therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation under Section 166 and not under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thus, urges this Court for modifying the award passed by the Tribunal.

5. Mr. Rathee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. owners of the offending tractor submits that the accident took place in order to save the Neel Cows which suddenly appeared in front of the tractor, in essence, the circumstances were beyond the control of the driver of the offending tractor. There is not even an iota of evidence to prove that respondent No.4 was rash and negligent in his driving. Even no complaint was filed before the police. The onus was on the claimants to prove the rashness and negligence in which they miserably failed. In the absence of any proof of negligence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- under 'no fault liability', thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The case set up is that the accident took place in order to save the stray animal i.e. Neel Cows, which suddenly appeared before the tractor and despite best efforts the driver could not control the tractor. Consequently it capsized and the deceased who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor received multiple grievous injuries, which proved fatal.

7. It is conceded position on record that the deceased-Rajinder Singh died in a motor accident. It is also conceded position on record that there was no independent eye witness present at the spot except the deceased and driver & owner of the offending tractor. Now the question arises whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, prin