The principle of res ipsa loquitur and the inquisitorial nature of the Tribunal's duties in determining just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award of Mr. Sarvat Ali Khan, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad dated 24th February, 2001, declining the claim under Section 166 of the Act last mentioned and awarding for ‘no fault’ liability alone.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal make a brief count.

3. On the 16th of June, 1997 in the morning hours, the claimant’s husband, Ramroop was proceeding from his Village to Atrampur Post Office in order to withdraw and deposit money. After finishing his work, he was proceeding to Post Office Senghar when at about 11.30 a.m. Truck No. UP-70H-9920, driven at a high speed, proceeding from the Allahabad end of the road, approached. The driver operating the vehicle negligently hit the deceased’s bicycle on the rear side, crushing him under its wheels. The accident is said to have happened in front of one Satya Narain’s house, the Local Sarpanch. The truck escaped towards Pratapgarh. Ramroop, the claimant’s husband died on the spot. He left behind him a family of three dependents, to wit, his widow Smt. Ram Dulari and two unmarried daughters, Asha Devi and Sangeeta Devi, aged 18 and 15 years in that order. The deceased was a government servant, a Grih Darshak, posted at the Community Health Centre, Karchhana, Allahabad. He was in receipt of a gross salary of Rs.4578/- per mensem and a net of Rs.4398/-. The deductions of Rs.180/- were beneficial, being those towards his contributions to the general provident fund account and group insurance. The claimant, accordingly, demanded for herself and the two other dependents of the deceased, a total compensation in the sum of Rs.5,65,000/-.

4. The claimant-appellant, who has instituted this claim petition, unless the context requires an individual or different reference, shall hereinafter be called ‘the claimant’.

5. The truck bearing Registration No. UP-70H-9920, which caused the accident, is owned by one Smt. Saroj Devi. She has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition and respondent No. 1 to this appeal. She would hereinafter be referred to as ‘the owner’, unless the context requires an individual or different reference.

6. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Allahabad are the insurers of the offending truck. They are impleaded as opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition and respondent No. 2 to this appeal. They will, hereinafter, be referred to as ‘the Insurers’.

7. A written statement was filed on behalf of the owner, where in para-wise reply to the claim petition, there is a general denial, except the fact that the ownership of the offending vehicle is acknowledged. In the additional pleas, the owner has averred that the offending truck is insured with the Insurers vide Policy No. 3131422000550 21/361, valid from 26.02.1997 to 25.02.1998. It is the owner’s case that the offending truck was being driven by one Mehtab Khan, who held a valid driving licence. The Police have incorrectly shown the driver to be one Durga Prasad Tiwari, who has no connection with the owner. According to her, the Police have filed a charge-sheet against a driver on mistaken identity. The owner has also denied the accident.

8. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurers, there is a general denial of the assertions and in the additional pleas it is said that it is incorrect to assert that the deceased died of the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. It is also denied that the accident was caused by the offending truck. There is also a denial of the fact that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. The identity of the claimants mentioned in the petition as dependents of the deceased is denied as well as the deceased’s income or the post that he held at the time of his demise. There is then an averment that in the absence of comp