Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S.P. Bhargava and G.P. Singh, JJ.
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
BASANTIBAI
Decided On : Apr 30,1971
(2) Fatal Accidents Act, 1955 - S. 1-A - death of employee while on his way to join duty - due to negligence of the employer in providing safety - when arises.
Negligence as a tort means the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage: undesired by the defendent to the plaintiff. The existence of a duty - situation of a duty to take care is, therefore, essential before a person can be held liable in negligence. The existence of a duty - situation in a given case has normally to be decided on the basis of previous decisions. If previous decisions of recognised authority have accepted the existence of a duty in certain situations or have clearly ruled its non-existence, the decisions will normally be followed in subsequent cases where similar situations arise for consideration. The difficulty arises, as in the instant case, where there is no direct precedent to guide. The Judges then have to decide whether in the given situation, for which no precedent exists, a duty should be recognised. (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL) relied on. 1932 AC 564 (1964) AC 465 (HL) referred. [Paras 6 & 8]
Normally, an employer owes no duty of care for the safety of his employee while the employee is proceeding to the place of employment from his house. The point, however, is whether the same rule prevails when the situation is abnormal and when as a result of outbreak of violence in the city, the law enforcement authorities promulgate curfew order requiring citizens to be within doors as the only means which can reasonably ensure their safety. In such a situation, when every citizen is expected to be within doors as a matter of safety, if an employer requires his employee to come to the place of employment in early hours of the morning, it is reasonably foreseeable that the employee is likely to suffer injury at the hands of some ruffian while on the way to join his work unless adequate arrangements are made by the employer for the safety of the employee. Requiring an employee to come to work in such a situation is itself such an act from which harm to the employee is foreseeable and the employee being closely and directly connected with the act of requiring him to join his work, the employer must have his safety in contemplation.
In the circumstances of the case there existed a duty situation and the employer was liable in negligence in not taking adequate precautions for the safety of the deceased, either by making arrangement for his protection while he was on his way to join his work, or by closing the business temporarily, if no such arrangement for the protection of the deceased was possible. [Para 9]
(3) Tort - vicarious liability - State owning commercial concern - is liable for negligence of the officers of the concern.
Where the State owns a commercial undertaking, the State is liable for the negligence of the officers managing the undertaking. 1970 JLJ 112 (FB) relied on. [Para10]
(4) Tort – damages - death by negligence - principles for assessment.
(5) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - S. 1-A - death by negligence – principle for assessment of damages.
The assessment of damages in ordinary cases resolves into estimating the proper annual dependency - the multiplicand - & selecting the number of years' purchase - the multiplier. There is not much difficulty in fixing the figure of annual dependency when the deceased is in employment with a steady salary which is likely to continue throughout his working life and when he does not leave behind any property likely to give any income to the dependants. The annual dependency at the time of his death may in such cases be taken as the basic or datum figure representing the multiplicand. As regards the selection of the number of years' purchase, the multiplier, regard is to be had to the estimated remainder of working life of the deceased, the probable duration of dependency of the dependents and the fact that instead of yearly payments a lump - sum is to be awarded. It has been said that in an average case where the parties are not too old or ailing, the multiplier tends to be in the region of thirteen to eighteen. 1970 JLJ 310 followed. [Para 11]
( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants against whom a decree for payment of Rs. 21,500 has been passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act.
( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to the appeal are that one Chunnilal was a driver in the employment of Central Provinces Transport Services (C. P. T. S. ). The C. P. T. S. was owned and run by the State Government till the formation of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 1962 under the provisions of Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. There were serious communal riots in September, 1956. During that period curfew was imposed and no person could move during curfew hours except under a pass issued by the District Authorities. On September 16, 1956, Chunnilal started from his house in the morning at about 6 O clock for going to the Jabalpur depot of the C. P. T. S. for joining his duty. He had been given a curfew pass. Before he could reach the depot of the C. P. T. S. he was stabbed by some miscreant in the abdomen, as a result of which he died. The plaintiffs, who are his widow aged 32 years and three minor sons aged respectively 8, 4 and 1? years, instituted this suit in forma pauperis for recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act. The suit was instituted against the C. P. T. S. and the State of Madhya Pradesh. During pendency of the suit, the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was formed and was substituted as defendant in place of the C. P. T. S. The case of the plaintiffs was that the management of the C. P. T. S. was negligent in not providing adequate arrangement for the safety of the deceased Chunnilal while going to join his duty as a result of which he was stabbed and died. It was also alleged that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. The plaintiffs claimed damages against both the defendants to the extent of Rs. 29,000. The defendants denied that the management of C. P. T. S. was in any way negligent or that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The circumstances in which Chunnilal died were also denied. It was pleaded by the State of Madhya Pradesh in a separate written statement that the liabilities of the C. P. T. S. were taken over by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and that the State, in any case, was not liable. The trial Court held that the management of the C. P. T. S. was negligent in not providing safety arrangement for the deceased while going to join his duty, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The trial Court assessed the damages to the extent of Rs. 21,500 and held that both the defendants were liable for payment of that amount to the plaintiffs.
( 3. ) IN this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants first disputed the circumstances under which Chunnilal died. It is, however, not disputed that from a few days before September 16, 1956, as also on that date, the situation in the city was not normal because of the communal riots and the District Authorities, had imposed curfew restricting movement of citizens without valid pass. It is also not disputed that Chunnilal was issued a curfew pass. The evidence of plaintiff No. 1 Basantibai, the widow of Chunnilal, is that on the morning of September 16 Chunnilal left his house for joining his duty. Thereafter, she came to know that he was stabbed and went to the hospital where he died. She also stated that Chunnilal had started at about 5-30 in the morning from the house. Gurudayal Singh (P. W. 2) stated that at about 6-00 or 6-30 a. m. he saw Chunnilal in a rickshaw at the C. P. T. S. bus stand. At that time the rickshaw-wala told him that some one stabbed Chunnilal in the abdomen. Gulab Singh (P. W. 3), who is also an employee of the C. P. T. S. , Jabalpur, clearly stated that during the period of riots all the drivers including Chunnilal and the witness w
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
