ROSHAN LAL Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for damages to the property, namely video camera equipment which was carried in the respondent's vehicle by the claimant. The claimant is said to be a photographer. The contention in the petition was that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver and the driver was also in a drunken state and by his negligence he steered the vehicle out of the road, drove into a ditch, causing fatal injury to passengers, grievous injury to yet another and damage to the claimant's video equipment. The defence was that there had been no negligent driving but the accident took place on account of the fact that the tyres suddenly burst that made the driver lose control over the steering and that resulted in the vehicle steering out of the road and falling into the ditch. The Tribunal accepted the defence and dismissed the petition.

(2.) I find the dismissal to be wholly erroneous. The case must be decided either on the basis of the evidence brought on by the appellant or in the worst case scenario on the statement of the respondents. If for any reason the Tribunal found that the claimant's narration of how the accident took place was not correct, and the case was to be examined from the context of how the respondents said out the accident that resulted. I would find the very defence is a vindication of the claimant's contention that there has been negligence. A tyre burst on the road is result of poor upkeep of one of the most important parts in a four wheeler. It shall be no defence for an owner to plead that a burst of tyre that makes the driver lose his control over the vehicle to result in an inference that there was no negligence. When a contention is taken before the Tribunal that there was a negligent driving by the driver and it is sought to be explained by the driver that he was careful in his driving and he had kept the vehicle in a state of repair, he was bound to bring before the Tribunal all the evidence of the care that he had taken for the regular upkeep of the tyres. A tyre that is properly maintained is not expected to burst or if it burst, and the driver was unable to control the steering and let it go into a ditch, it is illustrative of the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This issue is also not without precedents and governed by a large volume of case law from every High Court. In Darshan Kumari and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007 148 PunLR 219, a bench of this court held that bursting of tyre cannot be taken as an act of God to enable the driver or the owner to escape liability. In this regard, we may refer the Motor Vehicle Laws 14th Edition, Lexis Nexis, Volume 2 pages 1578-1579. that deal with the cases from every High Court of India taking homogeneously similar view casting the liability on the owner or the driver for any mechanical failure or bursting of tyres.

(3.) The Tribunal was wholly in error in dismissing the petition.