TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (3) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the truck caught fire. As soon as the fire was seen the driver cautioned the occupants to jump out of the truck. Consequently, Navneetlal and the other persons jumped out of the truck. While doing so, Navneetlal struck against a stone lying by the side of the road and died instantaneously. Parwati Devilwidow of Navneetlal brought a suit against the State of Rajasthan for damages under the provisions of the Act, The plaintiff alleged that it was on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck that a truck which was not road worthy was put on the road and that it caught, fire which led to the death of Navneetlal and that the State was liable for the negligence of its employees in the course of his employment. The plaint also alleged that the decreased had left behind him his widow, namely, the plaintiff, two minor sons, one m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the defendant. The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering damage, if the proper inference to in drawn from the circumstances which are known is that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The fact of the accident may, sometimes, constitute evidence of negligence and then the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies. The maxim is stated in its classic form by Erle, C. J. " Where the thing is to shown to be under the management 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jecture and inference is often a very difficult one to draw. A conjecture may be plausible, but it is of no legal value, for it sense is that it is a mere guess. An inference, inthe, legalsense, on the other hand, is a deduction from the evidence, and if it is are a sonable deduction it may have the validity of legal proof. The attribution of an occurrence to a cause is, I take it, always a matter of inference. The cogency of a legal inference of causation may vary in degree between practical certainty and reasonable probability. Where the coincidence of cause and effect is not a matter of actual observation there is necessarily a hiatus in the direct evidence, but this may be legitimately bridged by an inference from the facts actually observed and proved." In other words, an inference is a deduction from established facts and an assumption or a guess is something quite different but not necessarily related to established facts. Alternatively, in those instances where the defendant is unable to explain the accident, it is incumbent upon him to advance positive proof that he had taken all reasonable steps to avert foreseeable harm. Res ipsa loquitur is an immensely importa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the maxim res ipsa loquitur is attracted. It was, however, 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 whether the immunity of the State for injuries on its citizens committed in the exercise of what are called sovereign functions has any moral justification today. Its historic and jurisprudential support lies in the often quoted words of Blackstone Commentaries (10th ed., 1887): "The king can do no wrong. The king, moreover, is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinki....