BASTHI KASIM SAHEB (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 12-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
BASTHI KASIM SAHEB (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 
ORS. 
NOVEMBER 12, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act: Section JJOA-Resipsa loquitur-App/i-
cability of-Whether driver of vehicle acts with due care-To be 
ascertained from facts of case. 
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 claimes Rs. 75,000 as compensation. The respon-
dents resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the accident did uot 
happen as a result of rash and negligent 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 ofthe 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 negli-
gently and with a high speed. 
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment oftbe 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 permissibble to drive a vehicle at a comparatively higher speed but, 
H 
it will be highly unsafe to do so when circumstances are not favourable. 
658 
....... 
• 
BASTHI v. M.S.R.T.C. [SHARMA. J.] 
659 
The question whether a driver bas 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 
A 
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 
B 
unexpected development it was for the driver to have explained how, 
this happened, and there is no such explana,ion following. 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 bis part, but the defence has failed to produce any evidence to 
support such a possibility. [662C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
2097-98 of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9. 11. 1972 of the Mysore 
High Court in Misc. First Appeal Nos. 15 and 37 of 1968. 
S.S. Javali, H. Raghavendra Rao, Tripura Rao and Vineet 
c 
D 
Kumar for the Appellants. 
E 
K.R. Nagaraja, M. Veerappa and Nobin Singh for the Res-
pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was dellvered by. 
SHARMA, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against 
the decision of the Mysore High Court rejecting the claim of the appel-
lant, Basthi Kasim Saheb, for compensation under s. llOA of the 
Motor Vehicles Act. After the death of the appellant his legal rep-
resentatives have been substituted in his place. 
.2. The incident in question took place on 2nd July, 1964 at about 
12.15~.m. on the road between Mangalore and Bhatkal. The appel-
lant was travelling by a bus belonging to the Mysore State Road Trans-
'. ,, 
port Corporation running on the route Byndoor to Bhatkal. The bus 
F 
G 
was involved in an accident when it reached Suregahalla resulting in 
serious injuries to the appellant. After a considerable period of 
H 
A 
B 
c 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
hospitalisation he recovered, but the recovery was not full and comp-
lete and he claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees seventy five thousand 
only) as compensation. The application was resisted both by the Road 
Transport Corporation and the Mysore Government Insurance 
Department, Motor Branch. Their case is that the accident did not 
happen as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver, and in 
any event the claim was excessive. 
3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted the case of 
the claimant that the accident 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.