RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPURversusNARAIN SHANKER & ANR. ETC. ETC.

      866

A                RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
                       CORPORATION, JAIPUR
                                            v.
                  NARAIN SHANKER & ANR. ETC. ETC.
                                   January 30, 1980
B
                   (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
       Motor Vehiclts Act 1939, S. llOA and Constitution of India 1950, Article-
    41-Accident claim-State Transport Corpor«tion-Duty of.                                 1   4
        The respondents lost their limbs in a road accident while travelling in a
    bus belonging to the petitioner, a nationalised transport system. The plea by
c   the operator to escape the liability for compensation '\\'as that the lights of the-
    bus accidemtl.lly f«iled, which resulted in tlae accide11.t. The Accidents Claims
    Tribunal ne.catived the plea and awarded compensation in sums far lower-
    than were claiBled by the respondents.

       In the special leave petitions to this Court, the petitioner contested the..
    application. of the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the quantum of the claim.
D      Dismisiing the petitions,

         HELD : I. (i) It was improper of the       Corporation to have     tenaciously
    resisted the claim. [868 Al
        (ii) It was ri:ht on the part of the Tribunal to have raised a rebuttable
    presumption on the strength of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. [868 B]
E                                                                                          ,
       2. The heads of claim have been correctly appreciated by the           Tribunal'
    and the awards have been moderate. [868 CJ

        3. Instead of indulging in wasteful litigation, it would have been more
    humane and just, if the Corporation had hastened compassionately to settle the         ~
    claims so that goodwill and public credibility could be improved. [867 HJ

F        4. The St0te has a paramount duty, apart from liability foc tort, to make
    effective provision for disablement in cases of undeserved want-Article 41
    of the Constitution states so. r868 A]
        5. Nationalisation of road transport should have produced a better sense of
    social responsibility on the part of the management and drivers. One of the·
    major purposes of socialisation of transport is to inject a sense of safety,
    accountability and operational responsibility which may be absent in the 00.se
G   of private undertakings whose motivation is profit n1aking regardless of risk to
    life. (867 E·Fl

       6. Common experience on Indian high-ways di~close callousness and blunt~
    eel consciousness on the part of public corporations which acquire a monopoly
    under the Motor Vehicles Act in plying buses. It is a pity that State Road·
    Transport vehicles should become mobile menaces. [867 G]
n
        CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION' :            Special Leave Petition (Civil}
    Nos. 6698-6700 of 1979.
        ,
                 R.S.R. TPT. CORPN. v. NARAIN SHANKER (Krishna Iyer, !.) 867

           From the Judgment and Order dated 25-10-1978 of the Rajasthan
        High Court in D. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 195, 196 and 197 of
        1978.
               Soli J. Sorabjee Soli. Genl. and Sobhagmal Jain for the Petitioner.
               M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
               The Order of the Court was delivered by

                KRISHNA IYER, J.-These th}:ee petitions for special leave relate to

f       a road tragedy where many Jost their limbs while travellin~ in a bus
        belonging to the nationalised transport system of Rajasthan. A flimsy
        plea was put forward by the' operator to escape liability for compensa-         c.
        ti on that the lights of the bus accidentally failed and' thus the unfortu-
        nate episode occurred. Other embellishments were also set up for, the
        purpose of exoneration. The Accidents Tribunal was not taken in and,
        having disbelieved the evidence, awarded compensation in sums far
        lower than were claimed by the victims.
             Two contentions were raised and rightly over-ruled and they have
        been repeated in the Petition: for special leave and we similarly reject
        them. The nature of the accident and the surrounding circumstances
        are such that the doctrine res ipsa loquitur was rightly invoked by the
        court. Indeed, the terrible accidents attributable to reckless driving
    •   and escalating year after year make'oirr high-ways great hazards. One
        should have thought that nationalisation of road transport would liavei
        produ1:ed a better sense of social responsibility on the part of the,
        management and the drivers. In fact, one of the major purposes of
~       socialisation of transport is to inject a sense of safety, accountability
         and operational responsibility which may be absent in the case of private
        undertakings, whose motivation is prOfit making reagrdless' of risk to          F
~ _     life; but co=on experience on Indian high-ways discloses callousness
         and blunted consciousness on the part of public corporations which
        acquire a monopoly under the Motor Vehicles Act in plying buses.
r       It is a thousand pities that our State Road Transport vehicles should
        become mobile menaces, and we should impress upon them the need
         to have greater reverence for humai:t life representing, as they do, the       G
         valu(}-set of the State itself.
                In the present case, the State Corporation put fqrward a false plea
            and contested the application of the principle of res ipsa /oquitur to
            avoid liability. It would have been more human~ and just if, instead
            of indulging in wasteful litigation, the Corporation had hastened compas-
            sionately to settle the claims so that goodwill and public credibility
            could be improved. After all, the State has a paramount duty, apart
                                                                                  '
     868               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A   from liability for tort, to make effective provision for disablemen~
    in cases of undeserved want-Aritcle 41 of the Constitution states so. -
    It was improper of the Corporation to have tenaciously resisted tihe
    claim. It was right on the part of the Tribunal to 11ave raised a
    rebuttable presumption on the strength of the doctrine of res ipsd
    loquitur.
B
         The State Corporation has contested even the quantum of the claim.
    Indian life and limb cannot be treated as cheap, at least by State
    instrumentalities. The heads of claim hav{l been correctly appreciated
    by the Tribunal and the awards have been moderate. Here again, the
    State Corporation should have sympathised with the victims of the
C   tragic accident and generously adjusted the claims within a short period.
    What is needed is not callous litigation but greater attention to th(!
    efficiency of service, including insistence on competent, cautious and
    responsible driving.
        We have had the advantage of Sihri Soli J. Sorabjee, who repre-
D   sented the Corporation \vith a characteristic sense of fairness, but we
    are unable to desist from making_ the above observations which are
    induced by the hope that nationalised transport se.rvice will eventually
    establish their superiority over the private system and sensitively respond
    to the comforts of and avoid injury to the travelling public and the
    pedestrian users of our highways.                                                 ,
        We dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.

    N.V.K.                                              - Petitio11S dismissed.           -"'
                                                                                           '