ANANDI RAVJI VATAS Vs. ORIENTAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff, the present Appellant, filed by her against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, presently Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for damages of Rs. 11,000/ -.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple and are more or less admitted. The Plaintiff who was a girl of about 14 years of age on 9.4.1970 was returning home with a bundle of fuel collected by her and was proceeding by the side of the Shukla Mansion on the Ghodbunder -Thane Road when the bus No. MHT 1648, which is a bus carrying passengers, belonging to the first Respondent M/s. Oriental Industries driven by its driver present Defendant No. 2 knocked her down and caused injuries to her on the leg and the mouth. The time of the accident was 4 p.m. on that day. There is some dispute as to whether the bus itself knocked down the Plaintiff girl or whether one of the parts of the bus, viz., the universal joint broke away and dashed the girl. The initial case of the Plaintiff was that the bus itself knocked down the girl because it was being driven by the driver at a very fast speed. The case of the Defendant driver, however, was that it was not the bus which knocked the Plaintiff down but that the universal joint of the bus all of a sudden stripped itself apart and hit the Plaintiff when she was walking down the street. No negligence on the part of the Plaintiff is even remotely suggested by the Defendant but their case is that this is a case of inevitable accident because they could not have foreseen the eventuality, viz., that the particular part of the bus, viz., the universal joint would come unstuck in such odd manner. The contention, therefore, of the Defendant was that there was no negligence on the part of the driver or on the part of the owner of the bus, the first Defendant. The Plaintiffs contention was that because of the injury caused by virtue of the accident she suffered great loss. She received grievous injury on the leg and on the mouth resulting in knocking off three of her front teeth. While admitting that the girl was injured in that accident, the case of the Defendants was that, in the first place, the consequences of the accident were not something for which the Defendants could be held answerable because there was no negligence on their part as such, and, in the second place, that the damage was not sustained by the Plaintiff to the extent alleged by her.

(3.) ON behalf of the Defendants, the driver -Defendant No. 2 was examined who deposed to the fact that the accident was the result of the universal joint getting unstuck and its hitting the Plaintiff on the leg resulting in the consequent injury. According to him, he could not have had any control over such unpredictable behaviour on the part of the vehicle. Thus, the long and short of evidence was that this was a case of inevitable accident.