- (1.)This is an appeal by the owner of the Motor Vehicle and the Insurance Company against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Raisen, dated 10-9-1984 in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, who are dependents of deceased Hariram, who died on 6-9-1974. The only admitted facts are that on 6-9-1974 at the place of occurrence of the accident the deceased Hariram was found dead with his bicycle lying near his body and truck No. MPC 3501 was lying in a dashed condition against the road-side tree.
(2.)The only evidence regarding the accident is of Harlal (A.W. 2), who stated that the deceased was working as labourer with the same contractor with whom he was working and had received the news of accident. On receiving the news of the accident he rushed to the spot and found deceased Hariram lying dead with a fractured leg and the truck lying nearby in a dashed condition against a road-side tree. The Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the dependents of Hariram and taking into consideration his age about 40 years and daily earning at the rate of Rs. 10/-awarded a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 18,000/-.
(3.)In this appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company the first submission of the learned counsel appearing for them was that there was no evidence that the accident took place because of any negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the order sheet of the Claims Tribunal dated 10-9-1984 to show that a request was made for permitting additional evidence in the case by summoning the driver of the ill-fated truck but the tribunal refused that request on the ground that several opportunities for the purpose were granted in the past and the case was pending since 1974. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the truck driver was not allowed to be put in the witness box and, therefore, there was nothing on record to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle so as to sustain the claim. The counsel for the respondents in reply argued that since the driver was apart to the case and chose to remain absent, the principle of res ipsa loquitur can appropriately be applied to the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on behalf of the claimants/respondents on Pushpa Bai v. M/s Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 1735.