RAMU TOLARAM AND GULAM HUSSAIN SHAIKH MOHAMED AND REHEMATBI WD O RAJEMOHAMED AND SHAIKH MASTAN MADAR SAHEB Vs. AMICHAND HANSRAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Appeals arise out of an accident which took place on 24-5-1968. The nature of the accident was of an extremely peculiar character and spells out a patent case of res ipsa loquitur. Really speaking, there is no dispute that the accident, which caused injuries to the appellant in First Appeal Nos. 579/75, 669/75, 602/76 and caused death of the husband of the appellant in First Appeal No. 601/76, was the result of the negligence of the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. But the difficulty in this case is that nobody knows who was the driver and the respondents have studiedly refrained from bringing that fact before the Court. The appellants are ignorant and illiterate persons. Evidently, advantage is being taken of their ignorance and poverty.

(2.) The vehicle in question, MRC 5375, admittedly belonged at the relevant time to respondent No. 1. He had given the same for repairs to the Garage viz. Navyug Motors Garage. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the firm owning the said garage. Respondent No. 5 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle has been insured by the owner, respondent No. 1. It appears that the work of the repair of the car was more or less completed on 23-5-1968. It is the case of respondent No. 2, who has been examined as a witness for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that he has an open garage, that the work of the repairs of the car was more or less completed on 23-5-1968, and that in the evening he kept the Cars keys in the cupboard, locked the cupboard and had handed over the keys to one Kisanlal, who worked as an independent Auto Electrician in the Garage and also resided in the garage. The factual position, which is not in dispute, is that sometime or the other the vehicle was taken out of the garage by some one. The garage is situate as Agripada, near Mahalaxmi. The vehicle came all the way to the Crawford Market, driven by a person unknown. Time was 1.00 a.m. and at that time these 4 appellants were sitting within a traffic island engaged in the most cherished hobby of this Country, viz. chatting and gossiping. The vehicle driven by unknown identity as it was rushed into the traffic island and knocked these four appellants. Various injuries were received by three of them, viz. the appellants in Appeal No. 579/75. First Appeal No. 669/75 and First Appeal No. 602/76. One Bashir Ahmad who was then 28 years of age at that time died immediately. The case of the injured appellants is that they were removed to the Hospital, got some treatment and were later on discharged. Their further case is that they were kept out of work for a considerable time, the particulars about which will be given presently.

(3.) I may mention that when the Appeals reached hearing before me Mr. P. Shankaranarayan, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants, chose to remain absent. I have to hear the appellants with the assistance of Mr. Mhamane, who has appeared for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 5. After the Appeals were heard for some time and after I arrived at the tentative conclusion that the view taken by the Tribunal as regards the liability of both respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as well as respondent No. 1 could not be sustained, Mr. P. Shankaranarayan appeared in the Court but only to state that he had no instructions from his clients, the appellants and that he wanted to withdraw his appearance. By a separate order, the Court had already recorded that this was an extremely un-professional conduct of making an application for withdrawal of the Appeals at the eleventh hour. All the same, I have no desire to delay the hearing of the appeals. Since I was likely to allow the appeals even without any argument from Mr. P. Shankarnarayan, I found it un-necessary to adjourn the hearing of the appeals any further. I would have certainly adjourned it if I needed some assistance of any Advocate on behalf of the appellants. But since I am allowing all the appeals except one to substantial extent, I am not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the appeals at all.