AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 487 ::(1991) 2 MahLR 769 ::(1991) 2 ACC 5 ::(1991) 2 CivLJ 208 ::1991 (1) SCC 298 ::1991 SCC(Cri) 184 ::1991 (1) ACJ 380 ::(1991) 1 TAC 715 ::1991 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 360 ::(1991) 1 All WC 188 ::1990 (16) All LR 986 ::(1991) 1 APLJ 63 ::1990 (2) GujLH 549 ::(1991) 1 LJR 104 ::1991 (1) PatLJR 58 ::1991 (1) Pun LR 304 ::(1991) SC Cr R 67 ::(1991) 1 CurLJ(CCR) 210 ::(1990) 4 JT 371 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Mysore)

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. H. Kania, Lalit Mohan Sharma , JJ

Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) , S.110B— Accident - Negligence - Compensation - Evidence to prove that driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving - Statement of driver in cross examination supporting plea of Claimant - Failure of driver to explain happening of accident - Principle of res ipsa loquitur applies - Claimant would be entitled to compensation. Decision of Mysore High Court, Reversed.Torts - Res ipsa loquitur. In the instant case the part of the statement of the driver of the motor vehicle causing accident in the cross-examination supports the claimants evidence as proving rash and negligent conduct on the part of the driver. The evidence in the case indicates that there was no traffic on the road at the time of the accident. No untoward incident took place like sudden failure of the brakes or an unexpected stray cattle coming in front of the bus and still the vehicle got into trouble. In absence of any unexpected development it was for the driver to have explained how this happened and there is no such explanation forthcoming. In such a situation the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. The claimant, in the circumstances, could not have proved the actual cause of the accident, and on the face of it was so improbable that such an accident could have happened without the negligence of the driver, therefore the Court should pre....