Supreme Court of India
Basthi Kasim Saheb (Dead) By L.Rs vs Mysore State Road Transport ... on 12 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 487, 1990 SCR SUPL. (2) 658, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 487, (1990) 4 JT 371 (SC), (1991) 1 APLJ 63, 1991 (1) SCC 298, 1991 SCC(CRI) 184, 1990 (4) JT 371, (1991) 1 TAC 715, (1991) SC CR R 67, 1991 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 360, (1990) 2 GUJ LH 549, (1991) 2 MAHLR 769, (1991) 1 PAT LJR 58, (1991) 1 PUN LR 304, (1991) 1 LJR 104, (1991) 2 ACC 5, (1991) 1 ACJ 380, (1990) 16 ALL LR 986, (1991) 1 ALL WC 188, (1991) 2 CIVLJ 208, (1991) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 210
Author: L.M. Sharma
Bench: L.M. Sharma, M.H. Kania
PETITIONER:
BASTHI KASIM SAHEB (DEAD) BY L.RS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANDORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/11/1990
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
KANIA, M.H.
CITATION:
1991 AIR 487 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 658
1991 SCC (1) 298 JT 1990 (4) 371
1990 SCALE (2)982
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act: Section 110A--Resipsa
loquitur--Applicability of--Whether driver of vehicle acts
with due care---To be ascertained from facts of case.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was travelling in a bus belonging to the
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation when the bus was
involved in an accident resulting in serious injuries to the
appellant.
The appellant claims Rs.75,000 as compensation. The
respondents resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that
the accident did not happen as a result of rash and negli-
gent driving, but was just a case of an unfortunate accident
in which no responsibility could be fastened on anybody.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted the case of
the claimant that the accident took place on account of rash
and negligent act of the driver, but allowed the claim for
Rs. 35,000 only.
Both the appellant and the Road Transport Corporation
filed appeals. The High Court, however, agreed with the
respondents that the bus was not driven at high speed and it
was just a case of an unfortunate accident in which no
responsibility could be fastened on anybody.
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the
appellant that the High Court wrongly assumed that the bus
was not driven negligently and with a high speed.
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the
High Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial
Court, this Court,
HELD: (1) While driving on a good wide multi-lane road,
it may be permissible to drive a vehicle at a comparatively
higher speed but, it will be highly unsafe to do so when
circumstances are not favourable.
659
The question whether a driver has been acting with due care
is to be judged in that background. [661D-E]
(2) The evidence in the case indicates that there was no
traffic on the road at the time of the accident. No untoward
incident took place like sudden failure of the brakes or an
unexpected stray cattle coming in front of the bus, and
still the vehicle got into trouble. In absence of any unex-
pected development it was for the driver to have explained
how, this happened, and there is no such explanation follow-
ing. In such a situation the principle of res ipsa loquitur
applies. [662A-B]
(3) The burden in such a situation is on the defendant
to show that the driver was not negligent and that the
accident might, more probably, have happened in a manner
which did not connote negligence on his part, but the de-
fence has failed to produce any evidence to support such a
possibility. [662C]
JUDGMENT: