The driver of a vehicle is responsible for any accident that occurs due to his negligence.

Faizan Uddin, J

1. This is an appeal by the owner of the bus and driver Under Section 110(D)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 27-8-77 made by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, in Motor Vehicle Case No. 27-B/76, awarding a total sum of Rs. 9500/- to the claimants-respondents as compensation for the death of their father resulting from the accident.

2. On 25-11-76 at about 5.00 P.M. the deceased Bhagwandas, father of the claimants-respondents was returning to his village Raikheda on horseback from Rahli along with Onkar (P.W. 3), who was driving on another horse. A calf belonging to Bhagwandas also accompanying them. On the aforesaid date at about the same time, the bus No. M.P.K.. 3994 belonging to the appellant No. 1, driven by the driver, appellant No. 2, come from Rehli sideheanding towards Deori. The bus first hit the calf, as a result of which the calf fell on the ground and then the bus toppled down crushing the horse and the deceased Bhagwandas, who were on the left side of the road, as a result of which the horse died on the spot. Bhagwandas and the calf died later in the hospital. The respondents claimed compensation of Rs. 95500/-for the loss of their father and also for loss of the horse and calf contending that the accident had resulted due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the appellant No. 2.

3. The defendants-appellants contested the claim by contending that the driver of the bus was not rash or negligent but the accident had taken place because the calf suddenly came in front of the bus and dashed against it and when the driver swerved the bus to save the calf, it slipped and turned down, as a result of which the deceased and his horse were injured. It was also contended that the deceased Bhagwandas and his horse had not died as a result of the impact of the bus but due to fall on the ground and, therefore, defendants were not liable for any compensation. It was further contended that in any event the claim was highly inflated.

4. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Judge of the Tribunal held that the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, and, therefore, burden was on the driver, the appellant No. 2, to show that he was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently because at the relevant time the bus was under his control and he alone could explain as to how the accident happened. It further held that as the driver had failed to explain the manner in which the accident had taken place, it has to be accepted that the accident took place in the manner as alleged by the claimants and that Bhagwandas, his mare and calf died due to the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 1000/- for loss of mare, Rs. 200/-as loss of calf, Rs. 100/- as expenses incurred for taking the dead-body of Bhagwandas in a jeep from the Rehli to Village Raikheda, Rs. 1000/- as funeral expenses and sum of 7200/- as pecuniary loss resulting from death of Bhagwandas (total Rs. 9500/-). This appeal, at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and its driver, has been directed against the said award.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that both the parties produced evidence as to how the accident took place therefore, the question of burden of proof negligence is irrelevant. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal had placed the burden of proof on the driver by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. In support of his contention he cited several decisions. But, I do not feel it necessary to refer to those decisions as there is no dispute regarding the application of the rule of res-ipsa-loquitur. As a normal rule it is the duty of the claimants to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of any vehicle. But, there may be cases in which the claimants may not be knowing the cause of the accident,