1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 4339 OF 2008 The Union of India Through Commanding Officer, M.I.R.C., Ahmednagar. ....Appellant. Versus 1. Jayant s/o. Maruti Ghodekar, R/o. Khalwadi, Station Road, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Baban s/o. Sambhaji Mehetre, R/o. Kinetic Chowk, Arangaon Road, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office at 1248A, Shivaji Nagar, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune - 411004. ....Respondents. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondent 1. Shri. A.M. Phule Advocate h/f. Shri. D.V. Soman, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th October, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Notice in this matter was issued on 23.1.2009, in response to 2 which Shri. S.T. Shelke, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1, the original claimant. Notices on other respondents are all served. Shri. Phule, the learned counsel holding for Shri. D.V. Soman, appears for respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company. None appears for respondent No. 2. 2. Heard the matter finally by consent of parties. Admit. The learned counsels appearing for the concerned respondents waived service of notice. So far as the notice on auto-rickshaw driver is concerned, the same is not necessary, in view of the fact that no averments were made against him, about the negligence on his part and the claim petition has also been dismissed, against the auto-rickshaw driver. 3. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.8.2006 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Application No. 500/2000. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the driver of the military van No. 93-C-64661-Y was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in to the accident in question, which occurred on 26.6.1999. At the time of said accident, one Kamlabai was travelling in auto-rickshaw No. MWQ/4680 from Ahmednagar to Kedgaon for attending the funeral ceremony of her relative and as a result of dash by the military van, she died and the claimant in this case was injured. Hence, the respondent No. 1 claimant has filed MACA No. 501/2000 for compensation of Rs. 3 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Hence, the appeal by the owner of the vehicle. 4. Shri. Phatke, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the driver of the military van was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and according to him, it was the mistake on the part of the driver of the jeep, which resulted into an accident. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record and more particularly, the admission of the driver of the military van, in his statement at Exh. 48 before police, recorded finding that the accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which shifts the burden upon the driver of the military van and the owner of the vehicle i.e. the present appellant. Shri. Phatke, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is unable to point out any evidence on record to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Shri. Phatke, however, urged that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the statement recorded in Exh. 48. However, there is other evidence available on record, which is also relied upon by the Tribunal. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error of fact or law in holding that the driver of military van was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. It is also not disputed that the said driver has also been convicted for the offence of rash and negligent driving. In view of 4 this, there is no substance in this ground of challenge. 5. Except the aforesaid ground, there is no other ground raised in this appeal. Hence, the instant appeal is dismissed without any orders as to costs. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant states that statutory deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by the appellant in this Court. The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the said amount. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa4339.08