The principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' applies when an accident occurs and the circumstances are such that the accident speaks for itself and tells its own story, and it is for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause without his own negligence.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise out of the award dated 9-8-1994 passed in Claim Case No. 2 of 1990, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi.

( 2 ) THE National Insurance Co. has filed M. A. No. 940/94, Central Coal Fields Limited the owner of Jeep and Dumper have filed M. A. No. 1009/94 while the legal representatives of the deceased have filed M. A. No. 1010/94 for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 3 lacs awarded by the aforesaid award.

( 3 ) FACTS : One Mohosin Raza aged 24 years was employed as Class-II Manager and was drawing Rs. 3660 per month under the employment of the Central Coal Fieldslimited at Singrouli, a registered Government of India Company, the owner of Jeep No. CIE 3176 insured by National Insurance Co. Limited and of the Dumper neither registered nor insured. On 20-8-1989, Mohosin Raza was sitting in the Jeep car driven by Rajkumar, during the course of his employment at the place of his work in the mines area and was giving instructions on wireless to concerned employees. One Dumper No. 55 driven by Ramniwas during the course of his employment with Central Coal Fieldslimited dashed the Jeep standing stationary on the wrong side of the road. As a result of forceful impact the stationary Jeep was crushed, the driver of the Jeep and Mohosin Raza died sitting in the Jeep died at the spot. The legal representatives of Mohosin Raza i. e. widow aged 24 years and old parents filed an application under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'act') to claim compensation of Rs. 20,55,000 for the death of Mohosin Raza caused in accident by the use of two motor vehicles. The claim was contested by the owner of the two vehicles and by the insurer of the Jeep. The driver of the Dumper remained ex parte.

( 4 ) THE claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence to establish their claim. However, no eye witness to the occurrence was produced to prove the rash and negligent act of the Dumper driver. In rebuttal, the owner of the vehicles did not examine the Dumper driver. The Tribunal raised the adverse inference for non-production of the driver and on the basis of certified copies of charge-sheet (Ex. A-11), First Information Report (Ex. A12), Spot map (Ex. A13), Post-mortem report (Ex. A-14) of the criminal case under S. 304-A, I. P. C. against the driver in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Waidhan District Sidhi, held the accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent act of the Dumper driver. The plea of owner that the accident occurred in the prohibited area, not a public place and the Jeep driver was also responsible for the accident as it was parked on the wrong side against traffic rules was negatived. To award the compensation the Tribunal after estimating the dependency at Rs. 1830 per month, yearly Rs. 21960. 00 applied the multiplier of 20 worked out the amount of Rs. 4,39,200. From this Rs. 1,39,200 was deducted for lump sum payment, thus award of Rs. 3 lacs was awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 8-1-1990, the date of application till payment.

( 5 ) THE manner and the circumstances in which the accident occurred are eloquent of the fact that the driver of Dumper was rash and negligent, who collided with the stationary Jeep which was smashed, as a result of which the driver of the Jeep and Mohosin Raza died at the spot. It is a case where the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' that is the 'accident speaks for itself' or tells its own story fully applied. Hence, when accident was admitted, it was for the driver of the Dumper to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause without his own negligence, which is the well established principle. If any authority is needed, see Puspabai v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Limited, AIR 1977 SC 1735.

( 6 ) IN the circumstances the contention that the Jeep driver also contributed to the accident as it was parked on the wrong side of the road cannot be accepted. It may be t