Case: Krishna Bus Service Ltd Vs. Smt. Mangli &amp; Ors

This appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana awarding to the plaintiff-respondents a decree for Rs. 21, 600. It arises out of these facts.2. On January 21, 1955, Lala Wazir Singh deceased, a retired Divisional Engineer (Railways) was travelling from Delhi to Hissar by a bus belonging to the Krishna Bus Service Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company). On the way, the vehicle went out of order. Lala Wazir Singh and some other passengers were then transferred to another bus No. DLB 5749 belonging to the same company. This bus was being driven by Harbans Singh, defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 8 herein) who was an employee of the company, acting under its directions and instructions. When at about 3 p.m. this bus was negotiating a turn in village Kheri Sadh, a few miles from Rohtak, it overturned, causing the death of Lala Wazir Singh, at the spot and injuries to several other passengers.3. The widow, the sons, the daughters, the grandsons and grand-daughters of the deceased instituted a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Rohtak for the recovery of Rs. 50, 000 as damages for the loss caused to them on account of his death. The company was impleaded as defendant No. 1, the insurance company was joined as defendant No. 2 and the driver of the bus as defendant No. 3. It was alleged that the accident causing the death of L. Wazir Singh occurred on account of the negligence of defendants Nos. 1 and 3. The bus, it was pleaded, was not in proper order; it was overloaded with passengers and goods, and despite these facts, defendant No. 3 drove it at a very high speed while it was negotiating a turn. The liability of the employer company was sought to be fixed on the ground that it was negligent in employing such a rash and negligent driver and that the accident occurred when defendant No. 3 was acting in the course of its employment.4. In their written statement presented on July 16, 1956, the company admitted that the bus involved in the accident belonged to it and at the time of the accident it was driven by their employee, defendant No. 3. In regard to the allegations of negligence, the company repliedaccident alleged by the plaintiffs was not due to any negligent or careless driving of Harbans Singh driver of the vehicle owned by the defendant but was vis major. There was rain on that day and the front was slippery. The bus overturned and the death of the said Wazir Chand (Singh) was in no case the result of overturning of the bus.While finding that the death of L. Wazir Singh had occurred on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, the trial Court held that the accident took place "on account of the breaking of the tie-rod of the vehicle due to which the bus went out of the control of the driver". The tie-rod, according to the trial Court, broke because the front left wheel of the vehicle while it was negotiation a turn, fell into a pit. The court further held that the vehicle was not overloaded and its speed at the time of the accident was not more than 20 or 25 miles per hour, and as such, was not excessive. On these premises, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the accident involving fatal injuries to the deceased, was due to rash or negligent driving by defendant No. 3. It further held that in case issues 1 and 2, were decided in favour of the plaintiffs, the maximum damages awardable to them would be Rs. 34, 210, i.e. the amount of pension which the deceased would have earned, had he been alive for 9 years and 2 months after the accident.6. On these findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit leaving the parties to bear their own costs.7. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court. The Division Bench who heard the appeal, has after appraising the evidence on record, reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that "the accident was due to negligence attributable to defendant No. 3 or both defendants Nos. 1 and 3".8. This finding of negligence recorded by the High Court is based on facts appearing in the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 8 who were found by it to be entirely trustworthy. These facts are : (i) The bus was overloaded with goods and passengers. There were 60 or 62 passengers including 10 or 12 children, in it (vide PWs 5 and 6); (ii) It was drizzling; the road was wet and slippery (vide PWs 5 and 6); (ii) The tie-rod of the bus was not found broken but only "opened" (dismantled) when it was examined by the expert motor mechanic, PW 8, on the day following the accident. The handbrake and the footbrakes were also found in a bad condition; (iv) At the time of the accident the bus was negotiating a turn and passing through the habitation of village Kheri; (v) Immediately before the accident the bus was making a zig-zag movement and was being driven at fast speed despite the protests and shouts of the passengers asking the driver to slow down; (vi) The speed of the bus at the material time, according to PW 6, was about 30 miles per hour; (vii) The bus overturned as a result of which L. Wazir Singh died at the spot and other passengers, including PW 5, received serious injuries.9. The High Court further reinforced its finding with an adverse inference against the defendants drawn from the fact that the driver (defendant No. 3) who knew best the relevant facts, did not appear in the witness-stand to explain the circumstances in which the accident occurred. In this connection it observed :Buses to not, in such circumstances, normally and in the ordinary course, turn turtle. The transaction thus speaks for itself : in other words res ipsa loquitur, and in the absence of explanation by defendant No. 3 and his employer, defendant No. 1, the established facts and circumstances accompanying the fatal injury caused to the deceased clearly raise a presumption or at least permit an inference of negligence on the part of defendant No. 3. The Court below was thus clearly wrong in negativing negligence on the part of defendant No. 3 . . . .I would accordingly reverse the conclusion of the court below on this point and hold that the accident was due to the negligence of defendant No. 3 and was not inevitable which could not be obviated by ordinary care, caution and skill on his part.10. On the above facts and the premises, the High Court concluded that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver and was "not inevitable which could not be obviated by ordinary care, caution and skill on his part". In the result, it awarded a decree for Rs. 21, 600 as damages against defendants Nos. 1 and 3 with proportionate costs, limiting the liability of the insurance company, defendants No. 2 to Rs. 2, 000 only, plus proportionate costs.11. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
27. Coming back to the instant case, it may be observed that the driver was admittedly an employee of the appellant company, and at the relevant time he was acting in the course of his employment. The vehicle was the property of the appellant company under whose management defendant No. 3 was working at the material time. It is well settled that where in an action for negligence the thing causing fatal injury to the deceased and consequent pecuniary loss to the plaintiff is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of events, does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care, that affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.28. The appellant company was therefore fully liable for the negligent act of its employee and the injury resulting therefrom.29. No other point has been argued before us.