http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BASTHI KASIM SAHEB (DEAD) BY L.RS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANDORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/11/1990

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  487            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 658  1991 SCC  (1) 298        JT 1990 (4)   371  1990 SCALE  (2)982

ACT:     Motor     Vehicles    Act:     Section     110A--Resipsa loquitur--Applicability  of--Whether driver of vehicle  acts with due care---To be ascertained from facts of case.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant was travelling in a bus belonging to  the Mysore  State  Road Transport Corporation when the  bus  was involved in an accident resulting in serious injuries to the appellant.     The  appellant  claims Rs.75,000  as  compensation.  The respondents resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the  accident did not happen as a result of rash and  negli- gent driving, but was just a case of an unfortunate accident in which no responsibility could be fastened on anybody.     The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted the case of the claimant that the accident took place on account of rash and  negligent act of the driver, but allowed the claim  for Rs. 35,000 only.     Both  the appellant and the Road  Transport  Corporation filed  appeals.  The High Court, however,  agreed  with  the respondents that the bus was not driven at high speed and it was  just  a  case of an unfortunate accident  in  which  no responsibility could be fastened on anybody.     Before  this  Court it was contended on  behalf  of  the appellant  that the High Court wrongly assumed that the  bus was not driven negligently and with a high speed.     Allowing  the appeal, setting aside the judgment of  the High  Court  and restoring the decree passed  by  the  Trial Court, this Court,     HELD: (1) While driving on a good wide multi-lane  road, it may be permissible to drive a vehicle at a  comparatively higher  speed  but, it will be highly unsafe to do  so  when circumstances are not favourable. 659 The question whether a driver has been acting with due  care is to be judged in that background. [661D-E]     (2) 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

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

still the vehicle got into trouble. In absence of any  unex- pected  development it was for the driver to have  explained how, this happened, and there is no such explanation follow- ing. In such a situation the principle of res ipsa  loquitur applies. [662A-B]     (3)  The burden in such a situation is on the  defendant to  show  that  the driver was not negligent  and  that  the accident  might,  more probably, have happened in  a  manner which  did not connote negligence on his part, but  the  de- fence  has failed to produce any evidence to support such  a possibility. [662C]

JUDGMENT: