( 1 ) THE point urged in this appeal is concluded by the view I have already taken in the matter in the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company's case (Misc. Appeal No. 75 of 1983, decided on 4-12-1985 ). Shri Singhal has made forceful submissions to contend that I may have a second look at the provisions and have a look also at the decisions cited. I have to do that and I have done that.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are not disputed in this case, are that the claimants are legal representatives of a person who was in the employment of the owner of the motor vehicle on the date of the accident. There is no serious contest also on the question as to whether the owner of the vehicle incurred liability on account of rash and negligent driving thereof by the driver, who indeed, is not the person deceased. Much labour need not be expended either to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that there was a case proved of rash and negligent driving because of the doctrine res ipse loquitur being invoked. The vehicle over-ran the road-divider and failing to keep the balance, it got a jolt, whereby the deceased, who was travelling in the truck in the back-side, was thrown off the tr