The duty to adopt care and circumspection applies to both heavy and light vehicles, and the driver of a heavy vehicle has a greater duty to exercise reasonable care.

K.T. Thomas, J.

1. A claim made on the owner and driver of a stage carriage bus KLK 7221 for compensation arising from death of a young man in a motor accident was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. Claims Tribunal found that there is no proof of negligence in driving the bus. This appeal is by the claimants.

2. The facts, in short, are these: The accident happened on 18.9.1982 around 2 p.m. The deceased, a second year B.Com. student, was riding his bicycle from west to east along Changanacherry-Karukachal road. The bus came from opposite direction and knocked him down. Consequently, the cyclist sustained serious injuries and later he succumbed to his injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The claim was for Rs. 1,00,000/- after defraying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- already received from the owner of the bus. The claim was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased cyclist, The Claims Tribunal accepted the said contention and dismissed the petition.

3. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the accident occurred due to the negligence in driving the bus. Learned counsel for the appellants raised a new argument that as between a cyclist and driver of a heavy vehicle, the latter's duty is much greater to adopt care and diligence and hence there is a presumption when those vehicles collide with each other that the heavy vehicle was driven negligently. Learned counsel cited the decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in G.M., Bangalore Trans. Service v. N. Narasimhiah 1976 ACJ 379 (Karnataka), in support of the said argument. In that case, a cyclist was proceeding ahead (or in front) of a bus and the cyclist was knocked down by the bus which came from behind. We do agree that in such a situation, the type of vehicle has a bearing in fixing the liability regarding negligence. This is because the bicycle is a human pedalled two-wheeler which is, on account of the very type of it, subject to far greater limitations in collecting momentum or velocity, whereas a fuel propelled automobile is able to speed up much faster than the cycle. But we do not think that the aforesaid standard can readily be adopted in a case where those two vehicles collide with each other while coming from opposite directions. It may be fallacious to lay down a broad principle that the duty to adopt care and circumspection of the person riding or driving a light vehicle or a two-wheeler or bicycle is less when compared with the duty of the driver of a heavy vehicle in all situations. Whether heavy or light, the driver of heavy vehicle has the duty to exercise reasonable care and circumspection. When two vehicles are driven in opposite directions, driver of one vehicle cannot say that the other vehicle should have been driven more carefully than himself. When two vehicles are driven or ridden in opposite directions they do not normally collide with each other if both vehicles keep their proper sides. Similarly, if both vehicles keep each one's wrong side while coming from opposite directions, chances for collision are remote. Collision takes place between two vehicles coming from opposite directions when one of them does not keep its proper side while the other maintains its proper side. This broad probability has to be borne in mind while deciding the question of negligence in driving.

4. In order to decide whether the bus was driven negligently, the safe test which can be made in this case is to ascertain the spot (whether north or south of the road) where the accident happened. If it happened on the northern half of the road, the reasonable inference is that the bus was on its wrong side. (It is admitted that the cycle was proceeding from west to east and the bus was driven from east to west).

5. A reference to evidence is necessary to determine that point. PW 3 is the only witn