TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material time, working in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bhilwara as a Store Keeper. In connection with the famine relief works undertaken by the department he was required to proceed to Banswara. For that purpose he boarded truck No. RJE-131 owned by the department from Bhilwara on May 19, 1952 and reached Chittorgarh in the evening. Besides himself, there were Fateh Singh Fundilal and Heera Singh, the driver, cleaner and a stranger in the truck. On May 20, 1952, they resumed the journey from Chittorgarh at about 11 A. M. and reached Pratapgarh in the same evening. The truck started from Pratapgarh to Banswara at about 10 A.M. on May 21, 1952. After having travelled for 4 miles from Pratapgarb, the engine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or his act. The Court assessed the damages at ₹ 14,760/- and granted a decree for the amount to this plaintiff. It was against this decree that the State appealed to the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved by evidence that the driver was negligent, that the mere fact that the truck caught fire was not evidence of negligence on his part and that the maxim res ipsa loquitur had no application. The Court said that the truck travelled safely from Bhilwara to Pratapgarh and that the engine caught fire after having travelled a distance of 4 miles from Pratapgarh and that there was nothing on record to show that the engine of the truck was in any way defective or that it was not functioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care. The maxim does not embody any rule of substantive law nor a rule of evidence. It is perhaps not a rule of any kind but simply the caption to an argument on the evidence. Lord Shaw remarked that if the phrase had not been in Latin nobody would have called it a principle See Ballard v. North British Railway Co. 1923 S. C. (H.L.) 43. The maxim is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which the plaintiff proves a case so as to call f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the negligence of the defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff Will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability. The answer needed by the defendant to meet the plaintiff Is case may take alternative forms. Firstly, it may consist in a positive explanation by the defendant of how the accident did in fact occur of such a kind as to exonerate the defendant from any charge of negligence. It should be noticed that the defendant does not advance his case inventing fanciful theories, unsupported by evidence, of how the event might have occurred. The whole inquiry is concerned with probabilities and facts are required, not mere conjecture unsupported by facts. As Lord Macmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he took all reasonable precautions to avoid injury or that the particular cause of the injury was not associated with negligence on his part. Industrial and traffic accidents and injuries caused by defective merchandise are so frequently of this type that the theoretical limitations of the maxim are quite overshadowed by its practical significance See Millner: Negligence in Modern Law . 92. Over the years, the general trend in the application of the maxim has undoubtedly become more sympathetic to plaintiffs. Concomitant with the rise in safety standards and expanding knowledge of the mechanical devices of our age less hesitation is felt in concluding that the miscarriage of a familiar activity is so unusual that it is most probably ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, argued on behalf of the respondent that the State was engaged in performing a function appertaining to its character as sovereign. as the driver was acting in the course of his employment in connection with famine relief work and therefore, even if the driver was negligent, the State would not be liable for damages. Reliance was placed on the ruling of this Court in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1965] 1 S. C. R. 375 where this Court said that the liability of the State for a tort committed by its servant in the course of his employment would depend upon the question whether the employment was of the category which could claim the special characteristic of sovereign power. We do not pause to consider the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
