Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K. Tare and Surajbhan, JJ.
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
SUDHAKAR - Respondents
Misc. (First)Appeal 17 Of 1964
Decided On : 01/10/1967
The mere happening of the accident itself may be more consistent with negligence on the part of the defendant unless be gives a reasonable explanation to show how the accident may have occurred without negligence on his part. The maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur' is not a rule of law. It is no more than a rule of evidence affecting onus. It is based on common sense, and its purpose is to enable justice to be done when the facts bearing on causation and on the care exercised by the defendant are at the outset unknown to be plaintiff and are or ought to be within the knowledge of the defendant.
The doctrine does not apply when the cause of the accident is known. AIR 1962 SC 1, (1948) 2 All ER 460, (1930) 99 L.J.K.B. 353 relied on. [Para 13]
In the absence of any explanation on the part of the defendant, the Court can infer negligence, (1938) 2 All E.R. 621 and (1918) 2 K.B. 523 relied on. [Para 14]
(2) Tort – damages - deaths and injuries by accident - principles applicable for ascertaining amount of damages to be allowed - fatal accident - death of earning and non-earning members - bodily injuries - burden of proof.
In case of fatal accident, where the deceased be an earning member of the family, on whom other members might be dependent, the basis for calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependents may be the result of many imponderables. The actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependents may depend upon data which may not be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. The pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefits and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death. Thus, the loss and the gain have to be ascertained and to be adjusted against each other.
The burden would certainly be on the plaintiff to establish the extent of the loss. AIR 1962 SC 1 relied on. [Para 17]
However, where merely, bodily injury is caused resulting to permanent physical disability the pecuniary loss might be assessed on the disadvantage suffered by the person for the rest of the life.
Where a non-earning member of the family is killed, only nominal damages may be awarded. (1921) All E.R. 528 referred to. [Para 18]
It is rule that there may be many ifs and buts in the case of a child giving pecuniary benefits to its parents after completing its own education. But damages should be awarded in the case of death of a child. The loss is undoubtedly there. [Para 18]
As regards the non-earning members of the family, the damages to be awarded in the case of injuries resulting in permanent physical disabilities ought to be based on the consideration so as to set off the disability suffered for the rest of the life. As regards other injuries not resulting in permanent physical disability lesser damages commensurate with injuries and suffering might be awarded in suitable cases. [Para 18]
Calculation of the amounts of damages for such accidents on these principles made in succeeding paragraphs of the judgment.
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 10 of 1984 (Sudhaker v. State of M. P. and others); Miscellaneous (First) Appeal no. 16 of 1964 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar and another); Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 17 of 1964 (M. P. State Road Transport corporation v. Sudhakar and another); Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 13 of 1964 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Shaileshkumar and another); miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 14 of 1964 (M. P. State Road Transport corporation v. Smt. Indubala Bhandari and another) and Miscellaneous (First)Appeal No. 15 of 1964 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vasudeo s/o keshavrao Vyas and another ). One of the connected appeals, namely, miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 60 of 1963 (M. P. State Road Transport corporation and another v. Smt. Munnabai and others), which arose out of another Bus accident, has been disposed of by us by a separate judgment. These appeals arise out of a Bus accident that took place on 23-6-1961 at 1-15 p. M. between Guna and Indore, about 26 miles from Guna, when Bus No. MPG 4788, belonging to the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation went off the road, dashed against a tree uprooting it and struck against another tree, as a result of which the Bus toppled down on the left side below the road, Sudhakar received serious burn injuries from the boiling water of the radiator, which burst His wife smt. Usha and her young child aged about one year were killed on the spot. Shrimati Indubala Bhandari and her young son Shaileshkumar, aged about 21/2 years, received severe injuries, Similarly, Vasudeo Vyas also received severe injuries on account of the boiling water from the radiatorwhich burst. As a result, these injured persons made claims before the Claims Tribunal. Sudhakar claimed compensation for the injuries caused to him as also for the death of his wife and young son. It will be convenient to deal with these appeals in different lots. We propose to deal with them as follows: i-A.-- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 16 of 1964 -- relating to bodily injuries to Sudhakar, in which he was awarded Rs. 10,630 as against the claim of Rs. 25,000; i-B.-- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No, 15 of 1964 -- relating to the injuries caused to Vasudeo Vyas, in which his claim for Rs. 15,000 was allowed, as against the claim of Rs. 95,000; These two cases are similar. On the other hand, Sudhakar received more severe injuries. II-A -- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 17 of 1964 -- relating to the death of Smt. Usha Kotasthane, in which Sudhakar's claim for Rs. 15,000 as against Rs. 75,000 was allowed; ii-B -- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 10 of 1964 -- filed by Sudhakar as a counter appeal of Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 17 of 1964, in which he has claimed enhancement of the compensation by Rs. 60,000; II-C -- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 12 of 1964 -- relating to the death of the child of Sudhakar, in which compensation amounting to Rs. 7,500 was awarded against the claim of Rs. 40,000; iii-A -- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 14 of 1964 -- relating to the injuries caused to Smt, Indubala Bhandari resulting in permanent physical incapacity; iii-B -- Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 13 of 1964 -- relating to the injuries caused to Shaileshkumar son of Smt. Indubala Bhandari, resulting in permanent physical disabilities;
( 2 ) THESE appeals arise out of the award dated 30-7-1963, passed by the Claims tribunal Gwalior (Additional District Judge) in different claim cases filed by the injured persons for the injuries caused to them as also for the death of some close relations. The Tribunal invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur and held that in the absence of any rational and plausible explanation to be adduced by the defendants, an Inference of negligence on the part of the Bus driver could be drawn. As the accident took place for no apparent reason, whatsoever, the same could be
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
