case comment on ajit bhaskar v

Contract of bailment

Law of contract

Submitted to: Dr, Azmat Ali sir

assistant professor
AMUMC

Submitted by : Divyanshi (GM9534)

22llbwk212
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl.No. CONTENTS Pg.No.

1 List of abbreviations 3

2 Acknowledgement 4

3 Index of authorities 5

4 Case comment 6

5 A. statement of facts 7

6 b. Argument from the petitioner 8

7 c. arguments from the respondent 8

8 d. findings of the court 9

1|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

9 e. verdict 9

2|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATION
1 AIR All India reporter

2 NO Number

3 ORS. Others

4 S/0 Son of

5 SC Supreme court

6 SL.NO Serial number

7 V Versus

8 & And

3|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

Acknowledgement
I would like to express my heartly gratitude to our teacher of law of contract, Dr Azmat Ali sir as he
gave me the opportunity and guided me to make this project on contract of bailment and to work on
the case comment on Ajit Bhaskar vs Badami devi and Ram Chander Sahani .

Thanking you

Divyanshi

Faculty no. 22llbwk212

Roll no. GM9534

BALLB ( 3RD SEMESTER)

4|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
SL.NO. CASE CITATION

1 Cases Referred: Alias vs. E.M. Paul and Others AIR 2004 Ker.
214 B.
2 Govindarajulu Cheety vs. M.L.A. Govindaraja Mudaliar, 1966 ACJ 153

3 Devinder Singh Brar vs. Mangal Singh and Others, AIR 1981 P&H
53 D.
4 Rajapathi vs. University of Madurai 1980 ACJ 113

5|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

Case comment
2023 8 ADJ 169; 2023 0 Supreme(All) 593;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

J.J. MUNIR, J.

Ajeet Rajbhar – Appellant

Versus

Badami Devi and Ram Chander Sahani – Respondent

First Appeal From Order No. 70 of 2019

Decided On : 21-03-2023

Synopsis
1. statement of facts
2. arguments from the petitioner
3. argument from the respondent
4. findings of the court
5. verdict

6|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

1.Statement of facts
1.1 The Advocate Appeared : For the Appellants : Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, Ramesh Chandra
Pathak and For the Respondent : Vijay Kumar Dubey.

1.2 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (contract of bailment) is
directed against a judgment and award of Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/the
Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Gorakhpur dated May the 31st, 2017 in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 145 of 2012, ordering the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant-
respondent No. 1 for a fatal motor accident.

1.3 The question involved in this appeal is: Whether the owner of a motor vehicle who in turn had
hands it over for repairs to a mechanic, would be liable for the damages caused to a third party
sustaining injury on account of use of the motor vehicle by the mechanic in a public place, for
the purpose of carrying out repairs?

1.4 Indra Kumar Gupta was proceeding on his bicycle on 13.02.2012 to Khalilabad. As he reached
near a pond, located ahead of the Beni Madhav Inter College, within the local limits of P.S.
Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon hours, the rider of
motorcycle, bearing Registration No. UP-58D-4362, riding his motorcycle, at a high sped and
negligently, appeared and without sounding a horn, hit the bicycle that Gupta was riding. In
consequence of the impact, Gupta sustained grievous injuries. He was being conveyed for the
purpose of medical aid to a hospital in Khalilabad, but died on way. These are the assertions in
the claim petition instituted by Gupta’s wife, Smt. Badami Devi. Badami Devi is the sole claimant
arrayed in the claim petition and the respondent to this appeal. She will hereinafter be referred
to as the claimant.

7|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

2. Arguments from the petitioner

2.1 It is the claimant’s case that though the loss caused by the untimely demise of her husband
cannot be compensated in money, but still she is entitled to compensation. The deceased is said
to have been earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- a month, which he expended on his family. The
claimant also asserts that his untimely demise has deprived her of his company. Accordingly, the
claimant has demanded in compensation a sum of Rs. 18,21,000/- as per details set forth in
Column No. 22 of the claim petition.

2.2 Hence the petitioner pleaded for damages against the injury incurred on the victim and his
family.

3.arguments from the respondent

3.1 The owner of the offending motorcycle is one Ram Chandra Sahani, is opposite party No. 1 . He
is the second respondent to this appeal. He will hereinafter be called the owner. The owner put in a
written statement denying the averments in the claim petition generally.

3.2 In the additional pleas, he has denied the accident involving his motorcycle on the date, time
and place alleged. According to the owner, he had entrusted the offending motorcycle prior to the
accident to one Ajeet Rajbhar for the purpose of service.

3.3 Ajeet Rajbhar, without the permission of the owner, was operating the motorcycle, when he
caused the accident. The owner had no knowledge of the accident until after the lapse of a week. It
is the owner’s case that since Ajeet Rajbhar (for short, ‘the mechanic’) was operating the motorcycle
without the owner’s consent, it is he, who has to bear the burden of satisfying the compensation
awarded, in case the Tribunal is of opinion that it is the offending motorcycle that was involved in the
accident.

3.4 The mechanic, who was arrayed as opposite party No. 2 to the claim petition and is the appellant
here, put in his separate written statement dated 13.04.2016. He generally denied the allegations in
the claim petition.

3.5 In the additional pleas, it is his case that on 03.02.2012 or at any other date, he was not riding
the offending vehicle, but at the time when the accident is said to have happened, he held a valid
and effective driving licence, bearing No. A294715KN/05. The said driving licence was issued to him
on 07.07.2005 by the Transport Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. No accident happened on 13.02.2012,
because of the mechanic, rashly and negligently riding the offending motorcycle.

3.6 The claimant merely for the purpose of seeking compensation has come up with this claim. The
mechanic has denied his involvement in the accident.

8|Page
Department of law, Aligarh Muslim university, Malappuram centre ,Kerala
case comment on ajit bhaskar vs badami devi and ram chander sahani 2023

4.Findings of the court

4.1 the Tribunal held that the offending motorcycle was being ridden by the mechanic at the time
when the accident happened. The finding has been recorded after considering the testimony of PW-
2, an eye-witness, besides that of the owner.

4.2 the Tribunal has returned a finding that on the date of the accident, the mechanic held a valid
and effective driving licence.

4.3 The mechanic’s shop is located at a distance of 200 meters from the site of the accident. The
owner has said in his examination-in-chief that he had forbidden the mechanic from riding his
motorcycle in his absence or doing a trial run, but in his cross-examination the owner has said that
he had not given any written instructions to the mechanic not to operate the motorcycle in his
absence or to do a trial.

4.4 c. It was, thus, held by the Tribunal that the offending motorcycle, on the date of the accident,
caused it while being operated by the mechanic, and in the said accident, Gupta sustained injuries
leading to his death.

5. Verdict
5.1 The Tribunal has opined that since the mechanic had been forbidden from operating the vehicle
by the owner in his absence, it is evident that the accident happened when the mechanic was using
it for some work of his own. Therefore, the liability to make good the compensation awarded would
fall on the mechanic’s shoulder; not the owner’s.

5.2 With these remarks, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition, awarding compensation in the sum
of Rs. 1,88,000/- with 6% interest from the date of institution of the claim petition.

5.3 The liability to pay compensation was placed exclusively on the mechanic’s shoulders.

5.4 The owner was relieved of the liability.

9|Page