| Case Name: | Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi and Ors. |
| Citation: | AIR 1980 Cal 165, 84 CWN 616 |
| Date of Judgement: | 14 March 1980 |
| Court: | Calcutta High Court |
| Case type: | Appeal |
| Appellants: | Rural Transport Services (conductor and driver), insurer |
| Respondent: | Bezlum Bibi |
| Bench: | A K Sen, B Chakrabarti |
| Referred: | Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) |
| Key Words: | Contributory negligenceMotor Accidents Claim Tribunal |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- On 28 October 1969, Taher Sheikh took a bus to travel from Khetia to Bhatar. The conductor told him to go and sit on the roof of the bus since the inside of the bus was overcrowded and had no accommodation.
- There were other passengers also seated on the roof of the bus along with Taher. However, as the bus was nearing to Bhatia, the driver swerved the bus to overtake a cart on the road.
- As a result of this, Taher was struck by an overhanging branch of a tree and fell on the ground. He suffered multiple injuries on his chest and forehead.
- A day later he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
- The deceased’s mother and brother filed a complaint against the conductor and driver of the bus (appellants) for compensation along with the insurer under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Is the driver or the conductor of the bus liable for negligence or rashness?
2. Should the insurer pay any compensation?
3. Is the deceased liable for contributory negligence?
4. Are the petitioners entitled to receive the compensation?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELANTS
- All the appellants denied claims for compensation.
- The driver and the conductor denied negligence and instead contested that the deceased should not have sat on the roof of the bus.
- The insurer also contested a similar claim and also appealed that this particular accident was not covered under the Motor Vehicles Act.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
- The mother of the deceased stated that her son was 24-25 years of age and was a person of good health. He was a hawker and would contribute for daily expenses in his house.
- P.W. 2 stated that the conductor invited the passengers to sit on the roof of the bus due to the lack of space inside the bus.
- P.W. 3 corroborated the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 stated that the deceased died in the hospital and was later buried. No evidence against the insurer was stated.
JUDGEMENT
On the basis of all the evidence, the Tribunal considered contributary negligence on the part of the deceased and stated that the deceased should have taken precautionary care and should have considered his safety. The Tribunal however, also stated that there was definitely negligence on the part of the conductor, since he invited the passengers to sit on the roof of the bus. The driver was also held liable for negligence/rashness since he swerved to the extreme right and the bus was speeding. Therefore, the contributary negligence on the part of the deceased mitigated the liability of the appellants. The Tribunal also examined that if the accident would not have happened, the deceased would have lived for another 30 years. The Tribunal also overruled the defense taken by the insurer that the accident was not covered by the Motor Accident Claim.
The Court however, stated that there was no contributary negligence on the part of the deceased as any passenger boarding the bus puts his faith in the driver and the conductor of the bus. Passengers when taking public transport assume that safety would be provided to them. The deceased was not the only one who was sitting on the roof, many passengers were invited by the conductor to sit on the roof of the bus. Therefore, passengers had a reasonable assumption that the bus would be driven with caution and care.
CONCLUSION
This case shed a light on the concept of contributary negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellants effectively utilized the deceased’s inability to think about his safety and security when boarding the bus. This defense proved to mitigate the appellants liability for negligence. One must take all possible care to ensure the safety of oneself. This is not only a duty of the aggrieved but also of the one who possible may cause negligence. Anyone claiming for a compensation is also at risk of facing a doubt of contributary negligence. The aggrieved must prove that all actions of negligence were caused by the other person. The ground rule in every case of negligence is to find out who actually breached the duty of care.
Written By Sama Amin a student of Amity University, Dubai, 6th Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
