http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARAIN SHANKER & ANR. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/01/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  695            1980 SCR  (2) 866  1980 SCC  (2) 180

ACT:      Motor Vehicles  Act 1939,  S. 110A  and Constitution of India  1950,   Article  41-Accident   claim-State  Transport Corporation-Duty of.

HEADNOTE:      The respondents  lost their  limbs in  a road  accident while travelling  in a  bus belonging  to the  petitioner, a nationalised transport  system. The  plea by the operator to escape the liability for compensation was that the lights of the bus accidentally failed, which resulted in the accident. The Accidents Claims Tribunal negatived the plea and awarded compensation in  sums far  lower than  were claimed  by  the respondents.      In the  special leave  petitions  to  this  Court,  the petitioner contested the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the quantum of the claim.      Dismissing the petitions, ^      HELD: 1. (i) It was improper of the Corporation to have tenaciously resisted the claim. [868 A]      (ii) It  was right  on the part of the Tribunal to have raised a  rebuttable presumption  on  the  strength  of  the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. [868 B]      2. The  heads of  claim have been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal and the awards have been moderate. [868 C]      3. Instead  of indulging  in  wasteful  litigation,  it would have been more humane and just, if the Corporation had hastened  compassionately  to  settle  the  claims  so  that goodwill and public credibility could be improved. [867 H]      4. The State has a paramount duty, apart from liability for tort,  to make  effective provision  for disablement  in cases of  undeserved want-Article  41  of  the  Constitution states so. [868 A]      5.  Nationalisation   of  road  transport  should  have produced a better sense of social responsibility on the part of the  management and drivers. One of the major purposes of socialisation of  transport is  to inject a sense of safety, accountability and  operational responsibility  which may be absent in  the case of private undertakings whose motivation is profit making regardless of risk  to life. [867 E-F]      6.  Common  experience  on  Indian  high-ways  disclose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

callousness and  blunted consciousness on the part of public corporations  which  acquire  a  monopoly  under  the  Motor Vehicles Act  in plying  buses. It is a pity that State Road Transport vehicles should become mobile menaces. [867 G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) Nos. 6698-6700 of 1979. 867      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  25-10-1978 of  the Rajasthan High  Court in  D. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 195, 196 and 197 of 1978.      Soli J. Sorabjee Soli. Genl. and Sobhagmal Jain for the Petitioner.      M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.      The Order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-These  three  petitions  for  special leave relate  to a  road tragedy where many lost their limbs while travelling  in a  bus belonging  to  the  nationalised transport system of Rajasthan. A flimsy plea was put forward by the  operator to  escape liability  for compensation that the lights  of the  bus accidentally  failed  and  thus  the unfortunate episode occurred. Other embellishments were also set  up  for  the  purpose  of  exoneration.  The  Accidents Tribunal was  not  taken  in  and,  having  disbelieved  the evidence, awarded  compensation in  sums far lower than were claimed by the victims.      Two contentions  were raised and rightly over-ruled and they have  been repeated  in the  Petition for special leave and we similarly reject them. The nature of the accident and the surrounding circumstances are such that the doctrine res ipsa loquitur  was rightly invoked by the court. Indeed, the terrible accidents  attributable  to  reckless  driving  and escalating year after year make our high-ways great hazards. One  should   have  thought  that  nationalisation  of  road transport would  have produced  a  better  sense  of  social responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  management  and  the drivers. In fact, one of the major purposes of socialisation of transport  is to inject a sense of safety, accountability and operational  responsibility which  may be  absent in the case of  private undertakings,  whose motivation  is  profit making regardless  of risk to life; but common experience on Indian   high-ways   discloses   callousness   and   blunted consciousness on  the  part  of  public  corporations  which acquire a  monopoly under  the Motor  Vehicles Act in plying buses. It is a thousand pities that our State Road Transport vehicles should become mobile menaces, and we should impress upon them  the need to have greater reverence for human life representing, as they do, the value-set of the State itself.      In the  present case, the State Corporation put forward a false  plea and contested the application of the principle of res  ipsa loquitur to avoid liability. It would have been more humane  and just  if, instead  of indulging in wasteful litigation, the  Corporation had hastened compassionately to settle the  claims so  that goodwill  and public credibility could be  improved. After  all, the  State has  a  paramount duty, apart 868 from liability  for tort,  to make  effective provision  for disablement in  cases of  undeserved want-Aritcle  41 of the Constitution states  so. It  was improper of the Corporation to have  tenaciously resisted the claim. It was right on the part of the Tribunal to have raised a rebuttable presumption

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

on the strength of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.      The State Corporation has contested even the quantum of the claim.  Indian life and limb cannot be treated as cheap, at least by State instrumentalities. The heads of claim have been correctly  appreciated by  the Tribunal  and the awards have been moderate. Here again, the State Corporation should have sympathised with the victims of the tragic accident and generously adjusted  the claims  within a short period. What is needed is not callous litigation but greater attention to the  efficiency   of  service,   including   insistence   on competent, cautious and responsible driving.      We have had the advantage of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, who represented the  Corporation with  a characteristic sense of fairness, but  we are unable to desist from making the above observations which are induced by the hope that nationalised transport   service    will   eventually   establish   their superiority over  the private system and sensitively respond to the comforts of and avoid injury to the travelling public and the pedestrian users of our highways.      We dismiss the Special Leave Petitions. N.V.K.                                  Petitions dismissed. 869