The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when a motor vehicle suddenly leaves the road, mounts the pavement or crashes against an offside tree, or falls down an embankment and meets with an accident resulting in death, the fact that it went off the road is, without more per se proof of negligence.

( 1 ) THESE appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, preferred by two sets of claimants, are directed against the decision of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal. Indore, rejecting their claim for compensation for the death of two of the passengers, Jinendra Kumar and Basantilal, arising from ,a motor accident.

( 2 ) THE material facts, shortly stated, are as follows:-On the 13th February, 1965, there was a ghastly accident on the mortakka Bridge over the Narbada resulting in the tragic death of eight persons. It is as very large bridge, having a length of 2600 ft. with twenty-four spans each of 108 ft. Motor bus No. MPB 1492, owned by respondent No. 1 Ibrahim and driven by deceased Lal Khan, was carrying eight passengers en route Ujjain-Onkare-shwar via Indore. The bus entered the bridge near about 11-30 A. M. , and after it had crossed as many as twenty-one spans of the bridge, the driver suddenly applied the brakes; but the bus went forward with a jerk, suddenly veered across the bridge to the off side, dashed against two or three railings, crashed through the railings, and fell down off the bridge from a height of about 50 ft. into the rocky bed of the river, resulting in the death of the driver and seven passengers including Jinendra Kumar and basantilal. The sole survivor was one of the passengers, A. W. 3 Sajjan singh, who had a miraculous escape.

( 3 ) THE first set of claimants, Smt. Sushila Devi and others, the heirs of Jinendra kumar, alleged that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the driver. In support of that plea, they gave the following particulars of negligence:

"after the bus actually entered the bridge and was crossing the Narbada river and was nearing the southern end of the bridge, it suddenly ran into the railings on the right-hand side of the bridge and crashing through the same fell into the rocky bed of the river about 45 feet below. "

The second set of claimants, Smt. Kamalabai and others, however, alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the owner of the bus, i. e. , respondent No. 1. The particulars of negligence pleaded by them were these:"at the time when the sad and horrible accident took place, the condition of the said bus was also not in perfect order. The bus was moving then without a conductor ,at the time of the accident. The axle of the bus was also not in order. It is learned by the applicants that the axle was broken on the Narmada River bridge and due to this, bus could not be controlled and ultimately it fell down. "

( 4 )

"in answer to their claim the respondent Ibrahim in his written statement denied that the accident was caused due to any negligence on his part or on the part of the driver. In his defence he asserted that the accident was caused by a 'sudden mechanical failure. That plea was in these terms:-" the accident occurred as the axle was broken and due to breakage of the right pin and tie-rod of the driver side and as such the connection between the steering wheel and the front wheel disconnected and the vehicle became out of control. This being Vis Major, the owner is not liable for compensation. "

( 5 )

"the Claims Tribunal held that this was purely an accident caused due to a sudden dislocation of the tie-rod during the course of the journey, resulting in a disconnection of the steering wheel and the front wheel. While deal- ing with the question whether the claimants could rely on the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, the tribunal observed following the dictum of Lord Simon in Woods v. Duncan, (1946)1 All ER 420, that res ipsa loquitur only shifts the onus of proof which is adequately met by showing that the defendant was not, in fact, negligent. It accepted the explanation of the respondent No. 1 that the bus was kept in a proper state of repairs and that the accident was due to the breaking of the tie-rod. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the testimony of NA. W. 1 Ibrahim the owner of the bus, NA. W. 2 Rav