KRISHNA BUS SERVICE LTD. versus SMT. MANGLI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 21-01-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
178 
KRISHNA BUS SERVICE LTD. 
v. 
SMT. MANGLI & ORS. 
January 21, 1976 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Negligence-Vicarious responsibility of the 
manage111ent in fatal 
u11ury 
cases-Presu1nption when arises-Liability is on both the rash and _negligent 
driver and the 1nanagen1ent since the driver acted "in the course of its e1n~ 
ployn1ent". 
Duty to care-Absence of explanation by the defendflnts affords reasonable 
eride11ce towards contributory ne1diJzence. 
C 
Maxin1-Res ipsa loquitur-Applies to fatal accident cases 011 road. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Second appeal-Reappraisal of evidence on record by Supre111c Coun only 
in exceptional cases lvhere injustice would result. 
One of the buses belonging to the appellant, DLB 5749, driven by 
"HS" 
enroute to Hissar, while negotiating a turn in village Kheri Siadh overturned, 
causing the death of "LWS" and injuries to many. At the time of the fatal 
accident, the bus was over-loaded with passengers and goods, driven by ''HS'' 
at an excessive speed despite protests by the passengers while negotiating a turn. 
A suit for damages was filed by the legal heirs of deceased "LWS" against 
the driver and the appellant, the liability of the appellant arising out of the fact 
of its negligence in employing such a rash and negligent driver who 'was res-
ponsible for the accident acting in the course of its employment. The appellant 
took the plea of "vis major", there being rain on the fateful day and the break-
ing of the tie-rod of the vehicle when it fell into a pit and making the bus out 
of the controi of the driver. 
The suit was dismissed fixing the "quantum damni-
ficatus" at Rs. 34,210/- applying the principle of "quaritum meruit" and on 
appeal the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the accident \Vas due 
to negligence attributable to the driver or both the driver and the appellant and 
decreed the suit, basing on the cogent and trustworthy evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 
and 
8 
to 
these 
facts 
(i) 
Overload of the bus with 
goods 
and 
passengers; 
(ii) ·Wetness and slippery nature of the road d'ue to drizzling 
(iii) The expert report of the mechanic to the effect that the "tie-rod" of the 
vehicle \vas only ';opened" (dismantled) but not broken a.nd the bad conditions 
of the foot-brake and hand brakes; (iv) Factum of negotiating a turn and passing 
through the habitation of village Kheri; (v) Zig-zag movement nf the bus and 
the fast speed at which the bus was driven despite protests and shouts of the 
passengers; (vi) The actual1 speed of the bus at 30 miles per hour at the time 
of the accident and (vii) Over turning of the bus resulting in the death of 
"LWS" on the spot and injuries to many. The High Court, drawing an adverse 
inference against the appellant and the driver for non-appearance in the witness 
box held that "inasmuch as bu~es in sol,lnd road worthy condition and driven 
with ordinary care do not normally overtime, and in this case the bus did 
overturn, the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" applied." The High Court also 
awarded a decree for Rs. 21,600/- with proportionate cost as damages against 
the appellant and the driver limiting the liabiilty of Rs. 2,000/- onJy against the 
insurance company. 
On appeal by certificate the appellant contended (i) that it was wrong to 
assume that over-turning of the bus was "res ipsa loquitur"; 
(ii) that it was 
wrong to shift the onus on the appellant to show that they were not negligent 
and (iii) that in the absence of specific assignment of the reasons by the witnesses 
in their evidence the sudden breaking' of the tie rod was the cause of the acci-
dent and hence a vis major". 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
l 
• 
}' 
• 
)-.. 
; 
KRISHNA BUS SERVICE v. MANGLI (Sarkaria, !.) 
17 9 
HELD : ( 1) Ordinarily in second appeal, it is not necessary for the court to 
A 
reappraise the evidence on record because the first appellate court is supposed 
to be the final court of fact. 
rt 82El 
(2) Buses in sound road worthy condition, driven with ordinary care. do 
not normally over-turn. It would be for the driver who had special knowledge 
of the relevant facts to explain why the vehicle over-turned. 
The maxim 
"res ipsa /oquitur" v.:ould be attracted in such a case. In the present case, the 
defendants failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that arose frorn the 
manifest circumstances of the case. [184 C-D] 
Shya111 Sundar and others v. State of Rajastlian, A.I.R. 1974, S.C. 890, not

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