MELA RAM Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, dated October 12, 1971.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on June 17, 1971. Sohan Singh, a junior basic trained teacher was going to Mahilpur on a bicycle. It is alleged that Mohan Singh respondent came from opposite side driving truck No. PND 1431, rashlv and negligently and struck against him (Sohan Singh ). The occurrence took place on a bridge. Sohan Singh received fatal injuries and died at the spot. Mela Ram claimant, father of the deceased, filed a claim petition for recovery of Rs. 40,000.00from the respondents. The claim petition was contested by the respondents who inter alia pleaded that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Mohan Singh driver but had taken place on account of bursting of a front tyre. It is further pleaded that on account of bursting of the tyre, the truck went out of control and hit the cyclist. The Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of bursting of tyre and, therefore, the respondents were not liable to pay any damages. It, in view of the aforesaid observation, did not give any finding regarding the quantum of damages. Consequently, it dismissed the claim petition.

(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and find force in it. In claims for damages, in accident cases, normally the rule is that it is for the claimant to prove negligence. In some cases the above principle may cause hardship to the claimant, because it may be that the true claimant, because it may be that the true cause of the accident lies solely within the knowledge of the respondents, who caused it. This hardship is, however, avoided to a considerable extent by the maxim res ipsa loquitur. The maxim means that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the respondent is responsible than by any other causes, and that in such a case the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. In such cases it is sufficient for the claimant to prove accident and therefrom a presumption of negligence arises. The onus then shifts on to the respondent to show that the accident could not be avoided at any cost. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident from the evidence of the respondents that the accident took place on account of bursting of the tyres. The main question that requires consideration is that at the time of accident in what condition the tyre was. This fact could be within the knowledge of the driver and the owner of the truck. They, however, led no evidence to show that the tyre was in a perfect condition and it was being examined periodically.