SHYAM SUNDER AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 12-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHY AM SUNDER AND OTHES R 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
March 12,. J974 
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
549. 
Fatal Accidents Act, 18SS, See. 1-A-Accitknt 1esulting from truck catching firt-
Occupant dying of injuries sustained in jumping out of truck on caution by drive -
Maxim res ipsa /oquitur-App/icability of Constitution of India, Art. 300-Tortious 
IUWility of state- Held, fami'ne relief work not a sovereign funclf!'n. 
The deceased, who was at the material tinle in the en1ployment of the State of 
Rajasthan in the Public Department, was required to proceed from his office at· 
Bhdwara to Banswara, in connection with famine relief work undertaken by the 
department. For that purpose, he boarded a truck owned by the department from 
Bhilwara on,May 19, 1952 with six others.. Throughout the journey the radiator of 
the truck was gettiog heated frequently and the driver was pouring water into it after· 
overy .6 or 7 miles of journey. The truck took nine houn to travel the distance or 
seventy miles. 
After having travelled four miles from Pratapgarh, the engine of 
the truck caught fire. 
As soon as the fire was seen, the driver cautioned the occu· 
pants to jump out of the truck. Consequently, they did so. The deceased struck 
against a stone Iyina by the side of the road and died instantaneously. 
The widow of the deceased brought a suit for damages against the State of 
Rajasthan under the provisions of the Act. The plaintiff alleged, inter a1ia, that it 
was on account of the negliaence of the driver of the truck that a truck which was not 
road-worthy was piit on the road and that it caught fire which led to the death of 
her husband and that the State was liable for the negligence of its employee in the 
course of his employment. The plaint also alleaed that the deceased had left behind 
him his widow name]yt the etaintiff, two minor sons, one minor daughter and 
his parents. The plaiotilfclatmed damaaes to the tune of Rs. 20,<XXJ/. and prayed 
for a decree for that amount. The state resisted the claim denying negligence of 
the driver and plea.din& sovereign immunity. 
The trial Court relied on the maxim res ipsa /oquitur, found that in putting the 
truck on the road the driver was negligent as the truck was not road-worthy and sine 
the driver was negligent, it held that the State was vicariously Hable for his a.ct. 
Th4; court assessed the damages at Rs. 14,7flJ/· and granted a decree for the amount 
to the plaintiff. Against this decree the state appealed to ~he High Court. On the 
evidence on record, the High Court held that the principle of res ipsa /oquitur had no 
3pplication to the facts- of the case. 
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appea1. On appeal by special leave· 
to thi~ Court. 
HELD : (I) Generally speaking· an ordinary road·worthy vehicle would not 
cateh fire. The driver was nea].igent in putting the vehicle on the road. From the· 
evidence it is clear that the radiator was getting heated frequently and that the driver 
was poui-ing water in the radiator after every 6 or 7 miles of journey. The vehicle--
took 9 hours to cover the distance of 70 miles between Chittorgarh and Pratapgarh. 
The fact that normally a m:otor vehicle would not 
catch fire if its 
mechanism 
is in order would indicatC that there was some defect in it. The Distt. Judge. 
found on the basis of evidence of witnesses that th~ driver knew about this defec.._ 
tive cOndition of the truck when he started from Bhtlwara. [5540-FJ 
It is clear that the driver was in management of the vehicle and the accident is 
sw:h that it does not happen in the ordinary course of th!ngs. There is no evidCnce-
as to how the truck cauaht fire .. There was no explanatton by the defendant about':!: 
it It was a matter within the exclusive knowlcdce of the defendant. It was not.. 
~ible rOr _the plainti« to _give any evid~e a~ to the cause of the accident. 
these circumstances, the maxun rts ipsa loqurt11r 1s attracted. [S~4F-G] 
, 
'550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1974l 3 s.c.R. 
The 1naxiin docs not embody any rulC of substantive law nor a rule of evide-
·n:c. It is perhaps not a rule of any kind but simply a caption to an agrun1cnt on 
the evider.ce. The maxim is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circums-
tances, in which the plaintiff proves a case so as to call for a rebuttal from the 
defendant without having to allege any specific act or omission on the part of the 
defendant. Jts princi

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