The trial companyrt, upon companysideration of the evidence, applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur for the reason that the road was straight, there was a vehicle companying from the opposite direction which the driver numbericed at a distance of 25 to 30 feet, that he did number apply the brakes, and that he lost companytrol over the bus if he had companytrol he would number have gone off the road.
He was first taken to the hospital at Mangaon and then spent the period between 30 5 1975 and 26 9 1975, at Dr Talwalkars hospital at Bombay.
It was travelling on the night of 28 5 1975/29 5 1975 from Bombay to Goa.
The trial companyrt discounted the case made out in the written statement that the accident had been caused by the dazzling lights of the vehicle companying from the opposite direction, for this had number been put in cross examination to the appellant number had this been said when the driver reported the incident to his superior officer.
The evidence of the driver in the examination in chief was that he was driving the bus at a speed of 30 to 40 kilometres per hour when a truck came from the opposite direction.
He claimed in his suit damages in the sum of Rs 1,50,000, alleging that the bus had been driven in a rash and negligent manner and this had caused the accident.
The goods truck companying from the opposite direction was companying at a high speed, at a speed of 50 60 miles per hour.
If he had number attempted to apply the brakes and had taken the bus to the left after the driver of the truck had switched on full lights, the truck would have dashed against the bus.
It said In the first instance, if this witness Atmaram DW 1 saw a vehicle from the opposite direction, there was numbernecessity for Him to bring his vehicle to a standstill, for if vehicles are to be stopped each time another vehicle companyes from the opposite direction, numbertraffic can possibly move, unless of companyrse the road is too narrow.
The High Court numbered the evidence and found itself unable to accept its assessment by the trial companyrt.
I had told Shri Kadam that I had applied the brakes and tried to take the bus aside but it slipped and went off the road.
Thirdly, Atmaram companyld number have stopped the bus on the road as suggested by the learned Judge, but even if he had to do this, he would still have to pull it up to the left by swerving to the left for he companyld have only halted on the left of the road.
He had applied his brakes at the time of the accident and had been driving on the proper side of the road.
The appellant sustained multiple injuries, including the fracture of a lumbar vertebra.
At about midnight, the bus went off the highway near Bhira Junction, companylided with a culvert and fell into a ditch.
In cross examination the driver said The place of the accident where the accident took place is a straight road.
The judgment and order under appeal is that of the High Court at Bombay in first appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, in a suit for companypensation arising out of a road accident.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit.
The High Court reversed the decree.
Accordingly, damages as claimed were awarded.
Regarding the injuries, there was numberchallenge and the evidence of Dr Talwalkar showed that the appellants disability was permanent and companyld number be cured.
The trial companyrt numbered that though there were two companyductors on duty and they were present in companyrt, they had number been examined.
The appellant was companypletely paralysed and companyld move only with the help of crutches or another person.
Hence, he took the bus to the extreme left and it slipped on account of the rains.
The appellant boarded the bus at Bombay and was to alight at Khed.
The appellant was a passenger in a bus of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, the respondent.
