The burden of proof lies with the claimants to establish negligence on the part of the driver in a road accident, and the Motor Vehicles Act provides for liability and interest in such cases.

U.L. Bhat, C.J.

1. Petitioners are the parents of the boy Mohan Lal, aged 17 years, who died on being crushed by the rear wheel of a water tanker propelled by a tractor, in the early hours of the morning of 14.5.1983. The parents filed claim petition against the driver and owner of the tractor-cum-tanker alleging that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that rashness or negligence of the driver has not been established. This order is now challenged.

2. There are certain admitted facts in the case. A mass marriage ceremony took place in a hostel complex. There was a shamiyana put up. Some sides of the shamiyana were evidently removed and the tent cloth was lying in heaps on the ground. Deceased Mohan Lal was sleeping on the ground. There is a controversy as to whether at the time of accident he was lying on the tent cloth or under the tent cloth. The adjoining road lies north-south. The tractor-cum-tanker came along the road and turned towards the hostel compound. It moved forward with a view to empty the tanker. The rear wheel of the tanker ran over the head of the sleeping boy and he was crushed to death.

3. According to the claimants, the boy was sleeping over the tent cloth and he would have been visible to the driver if he had taken the slightest care to be on the look-out, more so when at 5 a.m. in summer, there would be sufficient light. The stand taken by the driver was that there was no one sleeping on the tent cloth which lay on the ground and that he asked the people assembled there to remove the tent cloth and they asked him to drive over, it was later found that the boy was wrapped in or lying underneath the tent cloth and was not visible and thus there was absolutely no rashness or negligence on his part.

4. PW 2 was examined in support of the claimants' case. He denied that the boy was lying covered or was underneath the tent cloth. He was not questioned by the police. He was a close relation of the deceased, being his grand uncle. Admittedly, several persons were nearby and could have observed the circumstances under which the unfortunate incident took place, but none of them was examined. It is nobody's case that the boy was removed before the police carne. The police would have observed the scene of occurrence and condition of the dead body, whether it was lying under the tent cloth or on it. The claimants made no attempt to cause for production of the relevant documents which may have come into existence during investigation. No attempt was made to examine the police officer who must have examined the place of accident or examined the dead body.

5. The driver was examined as RW 1. He also examined a person allegedly employed at the spot as RW 2 and RW 5 was a member of the committee which had organised the mass marriage. They consistently deposed that the boy was not lying on the tent cloth and the boy lying under the tent cloth was not visible, RW 2's evidence is of a doubtful nature, since he was not questioned by the police and RW 5 denied having employed him. But that cannot be said about RW 5 whose presence is undisputed. It is for the claimants to show that the accident arose out of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire evidence, held that burden of proof has not been discharged. We do not find it possible to take any different view.

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel that it is unnecessary for the claimants to prove culpability on the part of the driver. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act do not establish an independent source of claim, but effectuate the liability under the law of Tofts. That was why the legislature intervened to provide for partial no fault liability. This argument must necessarily fail.

7. It is next contended that the Tribunal which awarded no fault liability of Rs. 15,000/- as the law then stood, failed to award interest, as it oug