( 1 ) AMONGST the several issues raised by the learned trial Judge were issues Nos. 1 and 2 viz. whether the plaintiff proved that the accident was the direct result of rashness or negligence on the part of the defendants drivers and whether the defendant-corporation proved that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. In para 9 of his judgment in suit No. 175/1953 the learned trial Judge held that the defendant corporation failed to adduce any evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs and found against the defendant on that issue. As regards the question whether the accident took place in consequence of rash or negligent driving on the part of the drivers the learned Judge observed that in cases of this type it would be enough if the plaintiffs were to establish the accident; that it was not necessary for such a plaintiff to lead positive evidence to prove negligence on the part of the defendants servants as from the mere fact of an accident the law would assume that the burden of proving negligence has been discharged by the plaintiff and the defendant would then have to meet a prima facie case established by the plaintiff. He further observed that a public carrier of passengers owed duty to the passengers to take every precaution for their safety and if a passenger were injured as a result of collision or accident it would be the duty of the carrier to prove that he took every possible precaution to ensure the safety of the passengers.

( 2 ) THE principles on which such suits are decided are well known. The general rule that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence and not for the defendant to disprove it would in some cases cause considerable hardship to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident might be solely within the knowledge of the defendant. The plaintiff may be able to prove the accident but it might well be that he cannot prove how it happened 80 as to show its origin in the negligence of the defendant. This hardship is avoided to a considerable extent by the rule Res lpsa loquitur. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff in such cases to prove the accident and no more. It would be then for the defendant to show that the accident arose through no negligence of his. The maxim Res ipsa loquitur applies whenever it is so improbable that such an accident could have happened without the negligence of the defendant that a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so caused. It is true that there must be reasonable evidence of negligence but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of an explanation by the defendant that the accident arose from want of care. On the other hand if the defendant produces a reasonable explanation equally consistent with negligence and no negligence the burden of proving the affirmative that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence caused the accident would still remain with the plaintiff.

( 3 ) MR. Thakore for the defendant-corporation however argued that except for the bare word of the plaintiffs that the buses were being driven rashly or negligently by the drivers there was no positive evidence that a particular driver in whose vehicle the plaintiff was travelling was either rash or negligent while driving his vehicle. He contended that unless it was established by the plaintiffs that the driver of the vehicle in which he was sitting drove the vehicle either rashly or negligently it would not be possible to attribute the collision either to his rashness or negligence. He argued that it might be that it was the other driver who was responsible for the collision and not the driver of the vehicle in which the pa