Back
Karnataka High Court
Mallamma - Appellant
Versus
Balaji - Respondent
Decided On : 01-03-03
M.F.A. : 1655 of 2001
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 173 (1) - Accident -fatal injuries and death on spot -further the bullocks of the cart also sustained injuries -MACT Rs. 2,95,000/- claimed- dismissed- accident admitted -FIR and subsequent charge-sheet -not disputed -rash and negligent driving as the cause of accident and death disputed -strict rules of evidence not to be applied in accident cases- principle in the maxim res ipsa loquitur -applicable; victim unmarried agricultural labourer -claimant/mother dependant on -age of the victim -proved by post mortem as 28 years -claimant aged 50 years -loss of dependency arrived at Rs.9,000- multiplier 12 applied -Rs. 8,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate -total compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- awarded with 8% interest.
[K. Ramanna, J.] -The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence.
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 173 (1) - Accident -fatal injuries and death on spot -further the bullocks of the cart also sustained injuries -MACT Rs. 2,95,000/- claimed- dismissed- accident admitted -FIR and subsequent charge-sheet -not disputed -rash and negligent driving as the cause of accident and death disputed -strict rules of evidence not to be applied in accident cases- principle in the maxim res ipsa loquitur -applicable; victim unmarried agricultural labourer -claimant/mother dependant on -age of the victim -proved by post mortem as 28 years -claimant aged 50 years -loss of dependency arrived at Rs.9,000- multiplier 12 applied -Rs. 8,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate -total compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- awarded with 8% interest.
[K. Ramanna, J.] -The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence.
Cases Referred :
Followed: 1979 ACJ 110;
ILR 2001 Kar. 493;
Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur - Literal meaning: The thing speaks for itself. The onus of proving negligence lies upon the party who alleges it, for ei qui affirmat, non ei qui negat, incumbit probatio; and, to establish a case to be left to the jury, he must prove the negligence charged affirmatively, by adducing reasonable evidence of it. As a rule, the mere proof that an accident has happened, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence. In special circumstances, indeed, the mere fact that an accident has happened may be prima facie evidence of negligence, casting upon the party charged with it the onus of proving the contrary, for owing to the nature of the accident, re ipsa loquitur. Thus, where a ship in motion collides with a ship at anchor the collision is, generally, prima facie evidence of negligence in the management of the former, and where two trains of the same railway company collide, the burden of proving that the collision was not due to their servants negligence falls upon the company. Similarly, it was held that a prima facie case of negligence was established by evidence that, while the plaintiff was lawfully passing under the doorway of the defendant s premises, a bag of sugar fell upon him from a crane fixed above the door, or that, while he was lawfully passing along a highway, he was struck by a brick falling from the defendants railway bridge, or by a barrel tumbling out of an upper window of their shop. For where an accident happens from an inanimate object, which does not ordinarily happen if the persons who have the management of it use proper care, it may reasonably be inferred, in the absence of any explanation from them, that it happened through their want of care, an the defendants must "give a reasonable explanation which is equally consistent with the accident happening without their negligence as with their negligence".
Cases Referred :
Followed: 1979 ACJ 110;
ILR 2001 Kar. 493;
( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on both sides.
( 2 ) THE claimants in this appeal are the mother of the deceased Bhimaraya, who is said to be a resident of Rewoor village in chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District and the respondent No. 4 is the father of the deceased. The deceased Bhimaraya was aged about 28 years and he was working as an agricultural labourer under one Ramanna, s/o Sheshappa and was getting an income of Rs. 1,500 p. m.
( 3 ) ON a fateful day, i. e. , on 9. 4. 1997 in the morning the deceased was taking bullocks of his master Ramanna to plough the lands; at about 6 a. m. when he was so going near Rewoor gate on Chittapur- shahabad Road on the extreme left side, a milk van bearing the registration No. MH 13-G 0755 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, which was driven by the respondent No. 1 and dashed against the deceased and the bullocks. Consequently, the deceased Bhimaraya sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and further the bullocks also sustained injuries. The appellant-claimant being the mother, filed the claim petition before the m. A. C. T. , Gulbarga. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that appellant-claimant has not proved the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry which was involved in the accident. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein has challenged the same on the ground that her son died on the spot on account of the injuries sustained in the accident occurred at about 6 a. m. on 9. 4. 1997 and, therefore, principle of res ipsa loquitur is very much applicable on the facts of the present case.
( 4 ) THE principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the strict provisions of the Evidence Act need not be applied when the respondents themselves admit the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in question and the burden of proof shifts on them and, therefore, non-examination of any independent eyewitness to prove the negligence is not a factor to the case of the claimant. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the concerned police who registered the case against the driver of the lorry investigated and filed the charge- sheet against the respondent No. 1 for an offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and that itself is a prima facie case to prove the actionable negligence. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal appears to be not correct. Further, it is argued that the respondents themselves have taken a contention in their respective written statements that the accident if any occurred was not due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle but it was only due to negligence of the deceased Bhimaraya himself. This fact has to be proved by respondents by examining either the driver or independent witnesses, since the claimant wants to discharge her burden of proof and, therefore, principle of res ipsa loquitur applies and the appeal is to be allowed.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant herein who is a claimant before the M. A. C. T. is not an eyewitness to the incident and she has not examined either ramanna, who lodged a complaint against the lorry driver or Virupaksha Gaddeger who happens to be an eyewitness and it is for the claimant to prove the actionable negligence and, therefore, he has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs.
( 6 ) IT is an undisputed fact that late Bhimaraya died on the spot in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the early morning of 9. 4. 1997 on Chittapur-Shahabad Road, situated near the Rewoor village and the respondents herein have also not disputed about the injuries caused to the bullocks and also the fact that at the time of the acc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
