G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 6th November, 1984, whereby the claim petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts: On May 20, 1982, at 7. A.M. Ram Singh deceased reported for his duty with M/s Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. 180, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. He was deputed to go and survey the market requirement of Sector 22, Chandigarh. After conducting the survey he was returning to the Industrial Area at about 8.00 A.M. He got his scooter replenished with petrol at Emm Pee Motors and Filling Station, Bajwara Road, Sector 22, Chandigarh. While negotiating the bend of the said filling station, he was in the process of getting on the road leading to the Industrial Area when bus, bearing registration No. CHW 9033 driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooter as a result of which deceased Bam Singh came under the right front wheel of the said bus. The bus dragged him and his scooter for a distance of about 10/12 feet causing multiple injuries on his person compound fracture of the right leg which led to its amputation after he was removed to the P.G.I. Chandigarh. He remained under treatment there from 20th May, 1982 to 24th May, 1982 but eventually succumbed to his injuries. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement controverting the allegations made in the petition. He, inter alia, pleaded that one way traffic road leading from Ambala to Chandigarh, was blocked on account of repairs and the traffic was diverted to the road leading from the intersection of Sectors 22, 23, 35 and 36 towards Ambala side. At the time of accident, he was coming from, Ambala side and the accident did not take place due to his negligence. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed joint written statement taking almost identical pleas as were taken by Respondent No. 1. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether Ram Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 20th May 1982 as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. CHW -9033 by Shri Balbir Singh Respondent No. 1? If so, to what effect? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and if so, from whom? O.P.P. 3. Relief. Under issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the deceased. Under issue No. 2 he found that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,53,600 by way of compensation from the Respondents but in view of his finding under issue No. 1, he dismissed the claim application.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants assailed the finding under issue No. 1 and contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. I find that there is substance in the submission of this Learned Counsel. The, accident took place when the deceased was trying to get on the road leading to the Industrial Area. There is no eye -witness to the occurrence. It appears that after the accident some people assembled at the spot -and one of them conveyed the information to the Administrative Office of M/s Punjab' Beverages (P) Ltd. The driver of the Vehicle appeared as RW.1 and stated that a motor cycle suddenly came out of the precinct of the petrol pump in front of the (sic) and struck against his vehicle. He removed the injured to the Hospital. In cross -examination he stated thus: That the deceased had come on the motor cycle. The petrol pump is at a distance of about one yard. In fact the deceased was coming on scooter. It Makes no sense when the witness stated that the petrol pump is as a distance of about one yard. In fact, what he means is that the petrol pump is at a distance of about one yard from the place of accident. The occurrence appears to have taken place immediately when the deceased was trying to come on the main road after getting the petrol. This circumstance alone belies the version of Respondent No. 1 that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the scooter driver. In fact, it was the result of the negligence of (the bus driver. He was already on the main road and could not control the vehicle when the deceased, after negotiating the bend of the filling station, was in the process of getting on the road leading to the Industrial Area. The deceased appeared to have already entered the main road. The bus was coming from the opposite direction. The driver could not control the Vehicle and he crushed fee scooterist under the left front wheel of the vehicle. In these type of cases, the maxim res ipsa Ioquitur applies. It means when it is so improbable that such an accident would have happened without the negligence of the Defendant that a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so caused. [See Salmond on the Law of Torts (15th Edition) Page 30]. The following passage from Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition) at page 77 is very inceptive: An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is m the first instant on the Plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already established are such that the proper and natural inference arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the Defendant's negligence "tells its own story" of negligence On the part of the Defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous. In Pushpabai v. Ranjit G. & P. Company, 1977 A.C.J. 34, reported as referring to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Apex Court at page 346 observed thus: The normal rule is that it is for the Plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the Plaintiff as the true cause of the the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the Defendant who caused it, the Plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the Defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying/the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the Defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligent. It is further observed thus: Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the Defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. Some times a thing may take place in such circumstances as to render it practically impossible for any one to speak to its happening just like in a case of accident on a highway where there are no witnesses or where persons who could speak to the occurrence are not available for whatever reason it be. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not dispense with the need to prove a fact alleged by a person. It only effects the mode of proof. With a view to mitigating the rigour of proof of negligence under certain circumstances, the common law invoked the aforesaid doctrine.;