JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---All these Appeals arise out of an accident which took place on 24-5-1968. The nature of the accident was of an extremely peculiar character and spells out a patent case of res ipsa loquitur. Really speaking, there is no dispute that the accident, which caused injuries to the appellant in First Appeal Nos. 579/75, 669/75, 602/76 and caused death of the husband of the appellant in First Appeal No. 601/76, was the result of the negligence of the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. But the difficulty in this case is that nobody knows who was the driver and the respondents have studiedly refrained from bringing that fact before the Court. The appellants are ignorant and illiterate persons. Evidently, advantage is being taken of their ignorance and poverty.

2. The vehicle in question, MRC 5375, admittedly belonged at the relevant time to respondent No. 1. He had given the same for repairs to the Garage viz. Navyug Motors Garage. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the firm owning the said garage. Respondent No. 5 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle has been insured by the owner, respondent No. 1. It appears that the work of the repair of the car was more or less completed on 23-5-1968. It is the case of respondent No. 2, who has been examined as a witness for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that he has an open garage, that the work of the repairs of the car was more or less completed on 23-5-1968, and that in the evening he kept the Car's keys in the cupboard, locked the cupboard and had handed over the keys to one Kisanlal, who worked as an independent Auto Electrician in the Garage and also resided in the garage. The factual position, which is not in dispute, is that sometime or the other the vehicle was taken out of the garage by some one. The garage is situate as Agripada, near Mahalaxmi. The vehicle came all the way to the Crawford Market, driven by a person unknown. Time was 1.00 a.m. and at that time these 4 appellants were sitting within a traffic island engaged in the most cherished hobby of this Country, viz. chatting and gossiping. The vehicle driven by unknown identity as it was rushed into the traffic island and knocked these four appellants. Various injuries were received by three of them, viz. the appellants in Appeal No. 579/75. First Appeal No. 669/75 and First Appeal No. 602/76. One Bashir Ahmad who was then 28 years of age at that time died immediately.

The case of the injured appellants is that they were removed to the Hospital, got some treatment and were later on discharged. Their further case is that they were kept out of work for a considerable time, the particulars about which will be given presently.

(a) The injured appellant in Appeal No. 579/75, Ramu Tolaram filed a claim before the Accident Claims Tribunal for a total compensation of Rs. 15,000.

(b) The injured appellant in Appeal No. 669/75, Gulam Hussain Shaikh made a claim of Rs. 10,000/- before Tribunal.

(c) The injured appellant in Appeal No. 602/76 Shaikh Mastan Shaikh Madar Saheb, made a claim of Rs. 10,000/- before the Tribunal.

(d) The widowed mother Rehematbai of deceased Bashir Ahmad in First Appeal No. 601/76 made a claim of Rs. 15,000/- before the Tribunal.

All these applications were heard together by the Tribunal. Even evidence was led more or less in common for all of them, excepting the evidence related to the damage caused to the individual applicant. After examining the evidence, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that though the negligence of the Tribunal was a matter of obviousness, neither respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, nor respondents No. 2 to 4 the partner of the garage, could be held liable vicariously for the injuries cause by the driver of the vehicle.

As will be presently pointed out, they have not led any evidence to the show as to who drove the vehicle, as to how the vehicle came out of the garage after it was very much parked therein at 7.30 p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document