The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and the consideration of clerical mistakes in legal documents in determining liability and just and reasonable compensation amount in motor vehicle accident cases.

( 1 ) THE appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'm. V. Act' tor brevity) Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 27 4 2004 passed by Fifth Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, chhindwara in Claim Case No. 26 of 2002 whereby appellants' claim for Rs 12,00,000 compensation amount has been dismissed

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that deceased Sanjay alias Radhey Shayam shukla was the son of appellant Nos 1 and 2 and husband ot the appellant No. 3 and father of the appellant No. 4 On 2 5 1999 deceased Sanjay alias Radhey Shayam was travelling m a minibus bearing No. MP 20 C 9907 going to Narsinghpur Afore-said bus was driven by respondent No. 1, the legistered owner of the minibus was respondent No. 2 and it was insured with new India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Jabalpur, respondent No. 3 On the way near village kundali, the driver of the bus drove the bus rashly and negligently Therefore, the bus turned and fell down on the road thereby the deceased Sanjay alias Radhey Shayam sustained grievous injuries on his body and he was immediately admitted in the hospital at Narsinghpur Sanjay died on the same day due to the grievous injuries caused to him in this accident Deceased sanjay alias Radhey Shayam was running an auto spare parts shop at Harie, earning rs 6,000 per month and maintaining his family, appellants-claimants who are the dependants of the deceased The police had also legistered a criminal case against the respondent No. 1, the driver of the vehicle and filed a charge-sheet against him m the concerned court at Naismghpui On these allegations appellants being the legal heirs and the dependants of the deceased Sanjay filed a claim petition under section 166 of motoi Vehicles Act before the Fifth Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal chhindwara and claimed Rs 12,00,000 as compensation amount from the respondents after recording of the evidence and hearing the parties, learned Member of the claims Tribunal vide impugned award dated 27 4 2004 came to the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 1 and dismissed the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid impugned award appellants have preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. 3 supported the impugned award and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained absent in this appeal.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants had produced all the necessary documents before the Claims Tribunal which proved that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1 and this documentary evidence has not been rebutted by the respondent No. 1, the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the learned tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim petition filed by appellants.

( 5 ) FIRST point for consideration before us is as to whether this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No. 1. For this purpose, the appellant Gulab Bai, AW 1, who is the mother of the deceased stated before the Tribunal that her son Sanjay alias Radhey Shayam was travelling in a bus and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the bus turned turtle near village kundali and thereby her son Sanjay sustained grievous injury and died in the hospital. It is true, that the aforesaid Gulab bai was not present at the time of accident on the spot. Same is the statement of San-geeta Shukla, AW 2, who is the wife of the deceased. Normally at the time of accident these appellants could not be presumed to be present on the spot. They came to know about the fact after accident. Therefore, they could not be the eyewitnesses of the incident. But the appellant-claimant su