The application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur demonstrates the onus on respondents to prove absence of negligence in accidents.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, wherein the appeal filed by the insurance company was allowed and the claim petition filed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 was dismissed. The reason for dismissing the claim application was that the wife of the deceased had not deposed regarding the manner of accident as she was not the eyewitness. It was thus held that the accident is not proved to be on account of negligent driving of tractor by its driver.

3. We find that the reasoning given by the High Court is patently erroneous. The deceased - Ummed Singh was working as a cleanliness employee with the Municipal Council, Beawar. He had gone along with the tractor to pick up the garbage. The wife of the deceased appeared as her own witness and produced certain documents to prove income of the deceased. On behalf of the respondents, an employee of the insurance company was produced as NAW 1 Akhil Ahmad and NAW 2 Tarachand Sharma. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was an employee of Municipal Council drawing a salary of Rs. 13,016 per month and was of 46 years of age. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs. 20,14,734 based upon the last drawn salary and future prospects. The Tribunal also granted simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

4. The deceased - Ummed Singh was an employee of the Municipal Council. As per the appellant, the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the tractor. However, the driver of the tractor, namely, Hariprakash was not produced as a witness. He was the witness who could depose in respect of the manner of accident and to prove that he was not negligent in driving the tractor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will come into play as the respondents have failed to discharge onus on them to prove that the accident was not on account of any negligent driving of the tractor. This court in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan , 1974 ACJ 296 (SC), held that the maxim res ipsa loquitur is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily within the knowledge of the defendant.

5. Consequently, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor driven by the driver.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that the tractor could not carry any passenger, therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation. The said argument is not tenable as the insurance policy itself has a clause that one passenger is permissible to be carried on the tractor. This passenger is in addition to driver as driver cannot be called passenger. Still further the Municipal Council has produced evidence of payment of the additional premium to insure four passengers.

7. In view of the said facts, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is restored. However, the claimant shall be entitled to 9 per cent interest on the amount of compensation awarded, that is, Rs. 20,14,734 from the date of filing of the claim application till realization.
The appeals are allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Appeals allowed.