JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants, aggrieved by the award passed in Claim Case No. 39/89 dated 1.11.1993 by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are: The deceased Basant Kumar was employed as a conductor on the truck No. MBR 8756 owned by respondent No. 1 which at time of accident on 25.7.1988 at about 1.30 a.m. was driven by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. It is said that the deceased was sleeping near the rear wheel of the truck who was crushed while the respondent No. 2 since deceased reversed the truck. The claimants filed an application under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') and claimed compensation for Rs. 3,10,000/-. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties held that the rash and negligent act of driver is not established, it was the deceased himself who was responsible for the accident as he slept near the rear wheel of the truck, hence dismissed the application for compensation. 3. Mr. Ajit Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not applying the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitur which is a rule departed from the normal rule that is for the claimant to prove the negligence, but in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the cause of accident is not known to him, but it is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it. The plaintiff can prove the accident, but cannot prove how it happened. The general purpose of the word res-ipsa-loquitur is that the accident itself speaks to its own story. Counsel cited the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit G. and P. Co. AIR 1977 S.C. 1735 and two decisions of the Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ashadevi 1989 JLJ 541 and Dhanvanti v. Phulwant 1994 JLJ 192 . 4. After hearing Mr. Indira Nair, Counsel for the respondent No. 3, we are of the opinion that the principles of res-ipsa-loquitur cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. After hearing Mr. Indira Nair, Counsel for the respondent No. 3, we are of the opinion that the principles of res-ipsa-loquitur cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal on evidence recorded a finding that the deceased who was an employee of the truck of his own accord went to sleep near the rear wheel, in such circumstances when the truck was being reversed the deceased was crushed by the rear wheel for that driver cannot be held responsible. The defence of the respondent-Company in the written-statement is that the deceased was not sleeping but was signalling the driver to reverse the truck and in that he came beneath the rear wheel of the truck. If that stand is also taken to be correct, in that case too, the driver of the truck cannot be held responsible, because while reversing the vehicle if someone comes under the rear wheel the driver cannot see him nor he can avoid the accident. Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case it was a case where the driver even after taking reasonable care of a prudent man could not have averted the accident, hence the accident in the circumstances was inevitable. However, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the compensation on the principle of 'no fault liability'. At the relevant time when the accident occurred under Section 140, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was payable in case of death which has been substituted from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- by the amending Act which has come into force from 14.11.1994. Therefore even 'no fault liability' cases, the intention of the Parliament is that the legal representatives of the deceased who dies in a motor accident should get minimum Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, relying on the decision in M.A. No. 268 of 1990 Shivprasad and four Ors. v. Government of India and three Ors. by us on 9.4.1996 and Single Bench decisions of this Court in case of Rukmanibai v. Rahul and Anr. 1988 (1) T.A.C. 469, Ram Singh v. Sheikh Sikander 1990 (1) M.P.W.N. 143 . Therefore, we direct that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till deposit. 1988 (1) T.A.C. 469, Ram Singh v. Sheikh Sikander 1990 (1) M.P.W.N. 143 . Therefore, we direct that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till deposit. The respondent Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of the supply of certified copy. Appellants' Counsel to supply certified copy to the Counsel for the respondent No. 3. In case of default the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is substituted by directing that the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation, in default the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Appellants to get the costs of this appeal also from the Insurance Company. Counsel's fee Rs. 750/- if pre-certified.