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

- **Citation:** [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 658
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1990-11-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2097-98 of 1974
- **Bench:** M.H. Kania, Laut Mohan Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/basthi-kasim-saheb-dead-by-l-rs-v-mysore-state-road-transport-corporation-and-10903
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act: Section JJOA-Resipsa loquitur-App/icability 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 respondents 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 negligently 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]

## Text

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/icability 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 respondents 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 negligently 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 Respondents.
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 appellant, Basthi Kasim Saheb, for compensation under s. llOA of the
Motor Vehicles Act. After the death of the appellant his legal representatives 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 appellant 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 complete 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 took place on account of rash and negligent act of the driver but, did not agree with him on the amount to be
decreed. The claim was partly allowed for a total sum of Rs.35,000
(Rupees thirty five thousand only) with costs and interest. Two ap·
peals were filed against this judgment-one by the Road Transport
Corporation and the other on the question of quantum by the
appellant.
4. According to the defence the road while approaching SureD
gahalla was on an up-gradient and on reaching Suregahalla a downgradient. The driver of the bus, while reaching the top point, had
observed a bullock-cart standing unattended at some distance on the
left side of the road, and he had, therefore, to take the bus towards
Ill"
right; and accordingly when wheels of the bus went beyond the metal
portion of the road, they sank in the muddy soil due to the weight of
E
the bus and the vehicle toppled on its right side. The plea is that the
bus was not driven at a high speed as wrongly asserted in the claim
petition and it was just a case of an unfortunate accident in which no
responsibility can be fastened on anybody. The High Court agreed
with the respondents and dismissed the claim petition. The appeal of
the Corporation was accordingly allowed and that of the claimant
F
dismissed. This judgment is now under challenge before this Court.
G
5. Mr. Javali, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High Court wrongly assumed that the bus was not
driven negligently and with a high speed, and claimed that the case of
the claimant was fully established by the evidence on the record.
6. The sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 6, who visited the place of
occurrence soon after the accident prepared a sketch map which has
been admitted in evidence as Ext. A-4. He had also drawn up a
panchanama attested by witnesses, Ext. A-5. The map shows that the
unattended bullock-cart was standing on the left flank, sixteen feet
H
wide and no part of it ivas on metalled portion of the road which was
"
l
;!_
BASTH! v. M.S.R.T.C. [SHARMA, J.]
661
twelve feet in breadth. The right flank was, however, only eight feet
A
wide. The driver of the bus, R.W. I, attempted to suggest that the
bullock-cart occupied a portion of the tarred part of the road, which
does not appear to be correct. However, even if we assume in favour
of the respondents that in view of the bullock-cart being parked on the
road it was necessary for the driver to have taken the bus on the right
flank, the crucial question which remains to be answered is as to
B
whether while so doing he had slowed down sufficiently for the vehicle
to remain under control.
"'-
7. It has been established by the evidence in the case that in the
rainy season the unmetalled portions of the road were used to be
rendered slushy and muddy, and that, it had been actually raining for c
sometime. The driver, R. W. l, was serving this route for about four
months before the acCident and it cannot, therefore, be suggested that
he had no idea of the risk involved in driving down the vehicle on to
the muddy portion, requiring special attention and considerable slowing down of the speed. The question as to whether the bus was being
D
driven rashly or not must be answered in this context. 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. The question whether a driver
has been acting with due care is to be judged in that background. If the
evidence in the present case is examined it leads to the irresistible
E
conclusion that the dirver was driving the bus rashly. The petitioner
Basthi Kasim Saheb stated in his evidence that the bus was being
driven at a high speed, which was not reduced by the driver after
seeing the cart. The other evidence laid on behalf of the claimants also
supports this version. Albert Dias, P. W. 10, opined that the bus was
'
proceedlng at a speed of forty miles per hour and that if the driver had
F
slowed down putting the vehicle in a lower gear he could have passed
without going over the mud portion of the road. It is also established
by evidence that the fact that the mud portion of the road was soft and
not well-settled was known to everybody. The driver of the bus, Alji
Abdulla, R.W. 1, admitted in paragraph six of his deposition that he
was driving the bus in the third gear right from the place the road
G
proceeded on down-gradient and he continued driving in the third gear
even at the time of the accident. This means that there was no attempt
to slow down while going from the tarred portion to the mud portion.
This part of the statement of the driver in the cross-examination sup-
•
ports the petitioner's evidence which have been accepted by the trial
court as proving rash and negligent conduct on the part of the driver.
H
A
B
c
D
E
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
8. The evidence in the case i.ndicates 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 unexpected development it was for the driver to have explained
how this happened and there is no such explanation forthcoming. In
such a situation the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. The petitioner, in the circumstances, could not have proved the actual cause of
the accident, and on the face of it, it was so improbable that such a
accident could have happened without the negligence of the driver,
that the Court should presume such negligence without further evidence. 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 defence has failed to produce any evidence to support
such a possibility. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the trial
court on this issue and set aside the judgment of the High Court.
9. The trial court has given good reasons supported by evidence
for its assessment of the compensation amount had the learned counsel
for the appellants has not been able to suggest any acceptable ground
to interfere with the same. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the
High Court and restore the decree passed by the trial court. The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances we direct that the
parties shall bear their own costs of the High Court and of this Court.
R.S.S.
Appeal allowed.
)