Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 441
S.K. Dubey, S Singh J.
Rajni Bai And Ors.
vs
Avtar Singh And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 24 April, 1996
The court emphasized that the principles of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied as the deceased was responsible for his own actions, and highlighted the entitlement of the claimants to a minimum compensation under 'no fault liability'.
Headnote:
res ipsa loquitur - Motor Vehicles Act - The court held that the principles of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied in the case as the deceased, of his own accord, went to sleep near the rear wheel of the truck, and the driver could not be held responsible for the accident. The court also noted that even in 'no fault liability' cases, the legal representatives of the deceased should receive a minimum compensation, as per the intention of the Parliament.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an employee of the truck, was crushed by the rear wheel of the truck while sleeping near it. The Tribunal held that the driver was not responsible for the accident and dismissed the application for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver could not be held responsible for the accident and that the claimants were entitled to compensation under 'no fault liability'.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility for the accident, application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied as the deceased was responsible for his own actions, and the driver could not have averted the accident even with reasonable care. The court also emphasized the entitlement of the claimants to a minimum compensation under 'no fault liability'.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the claimants were awarded Rs. 50,000 with interest, with the insurance company directed to make the payment within a specified period.
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants, aggrieved by the award passed in claim case No. 39 of 1989 dated 1.11.1993 by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are: The deceased Basant Kumar was employed as a conductor on the truck No. MBR 8756 owned by respondent No. 1 which at the time of accident on 25.7.1988 at about 1.30 a.m. was driven by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No.
3. It is said that the deceased was sleeping near the rear wheel of the truck who was crushed while the respondent No. 2 since deceased reversed the truck. The claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and claimed compensation of Rs. 3,10,000/-. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties held that the rash and negligent act of the driver is not established, it was the deceased himself who was responsible for the accident as he slept near the rear wheel of the truck, hence dismissed the application for compensation.
3. Mr. Ajit Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which is a rule departed from the normal rule that is for the claimant to prove the negligence, but in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the cause of accident is not known to him, but it is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it. The plaintiff can prove the accident, but cannot prove how it happened. The general purpose of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident itself speaks its own story. Counsel cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC) and two decisions of the court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ashadevi 1988 ACJ 846 (MP) and Dhanwanti v. Kulwant Singh 1994 ACJ 708 (MP).
4. After hearing Ms. Indira Nair, counsel for the respondent No. 3, we are of the opinion that the principles of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal on evidence recorded a finding that the deceased who was an employee of the truck, of his own accord went to sleep near the rear wheel, in such circumstances when the truck was being reversed the deceased was crushed by the rear wheel, for that driver cannot be held responsible. The defence of the respondent company in the written statement is that the deceased was not sleeping but was signalling the driver to reverse the truck and in that he came beneath the rear wheel of the truck. If that stand is also taken to be correct, in that case too, the driver of the truck cannot be held responsible, because while reversing the vehicle if someone comes under the rear wheel the driver cannot see him nor he can avoid the accident. Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case it was a case where the driver even after taking reasonable care of a prudent man could not have averted the accident, hence the accident in the circumstances was inevitable. However, the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the compensation on the principle of 'no fault liability'. At the relevant time when the accident occurred, under Section 140, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was payable in case of death which has been substituted from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- by the amending Act which has come into force from 14.11.1994. Therefore, even in 'no fault liability' cases, the intention of the Parliament is that the legal representatives of the deceased who dies in a motor accident should get minimum Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, relying on the decision in Shivprasad v. Government of India, M.A. No. 268 of 1990; decided by us on 9.4.1996 and single Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Rukmanibai v. Rahul 1988 (1) TAC 469, Ramsingh v. Sheikh Sikandar 1990 ACJ 8
