The court held that where a person is going just next to the pavement and a vehicle comes from the back and knocks him down, the facts themselves show the negligence of the driver.

( 1 ) SUBHASH Chander has come up in appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, asking for enhancement of compensation. The respondents have also filed cross-objections praying for the dismissal of the application for grant of compensation.

( 2 ) SUBHASH Chander, aged about 7 years, was going on Coronation Road at about 7. 30 A. M. on 10-6-1962 when bus No. PNG 2291, belonging to the State of Punjab and driven by Ram Singh, respondent, came from behind and hit him. Subhash Chander suffered various injuries and was admitted to the hospital. He made an application for compensation claiming Rs. 55,000. 00 as compensation for the injuries suffered by him because of the accident resulting from negligence and rash and reckless driving by Ram Singh. respondent. This application was contested by the respondents and they alleged that Subhash Chander was injured due to his own fault.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal found that it was the rash and negligent driving of Ram Singh, respondent, that had caused the injuries and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,090. 00.

( 4 ) IN order to prove the negligence of the driver, the appellant had produced Ramji Das A. W. 1 and Ishar Das A. W. 2. Both these persons are the eye witnesses. Ramji Das has stated that he had seen Subhash Chander coming towards him. From his back the bus in question came and hit him. At the time of the accident Subhash Chander was about one foot from the pavement. He also stated that the bus came to a stop after 8 to 10 steps. Nothing material was suggested in cross- examination. Similar was the case of Ishar Das who had corroborated Ramji Das A. W. 1. Both these witnesses were present at the spot when the police came and their statements were recorded by the police.

( 5 ) THE witnesses produced by the respondents stated that the pavement on the side of the road is kachha . On one side it had been dug and the earth had been stacked. There was a bus on one side and the child had suddenly appeared from the back of the stationary bus and came up in front of the bus in question. It was for that reason that the accident took place. I cannot believe these witnesses since no such suggestion was made by the respondents to the witnesses produced by the appellant, nor was this fact stated by the respondents in their written statements. I also find that Sardar Singh R. W. 3 does not support the respondents case and according to him the accident had taken place in the manner in which the appellant alleged. This witness was not got declared hostile by the respondents. In the light of the evidence discussed above, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of Ram Singh. respondent No. 1.

( 6 ) WHERE a person is going just next to the pavement and a vehicle comes from the back and knocks him down. the facts themselves show the negligence of the driver. It is true that ordinarily the burden of proving negligence is on the person who alleges it. However, the circumstances of a particular case may speak for themselves and show negligence on the part of the driver of a vehicle. In these circumstances it will be the duty of the driver and owner of the vehicle to disprove negligence. Halsbury s Laws of England (2nd Edition Vol. 23 at page 671) reads thus:

"an exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in the first instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already established are such that the proper and natural inference immediately arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the defendant s negligence, or where the event charged as negligence tells its own story of negligence on the part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous. To these cases the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies. Where the doctrine applies, a presumption of fault is raised against the defendant, which if h