GLS University

Faculty of Law
Integrated Five-Year B.B.A.LL. B Programme
Batch: 2023-28: Academic Year: 2023-24
SEMESTER: I

Course Title: Law of Torts including MV Accident

And Consumer Protection Laws
Course Code: 222801106

Submitted to: Mrs. DIPAL PANDEY, Assistant Professor

From: Name : Aayushi Manek
Roll no: 31 Div: A
 Table of content

Sr.no content Pg.no

1. Inevitable accident
2 Vedantacharya v. Highways Deptt. of
South

3 Krishna Patra vs Orissa State

Electricity Board

4 Smt. Praveen Rawat And Others vs Anuroop

Singh And Another
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT

Introduction:
The defense of inevitable accident is available when
some harm occurs during the performance of a
legitimate act, done with all reasonable care, for any
unavoidable reason, and as such, the damage does not
give rise to a cause of action. It is one of the several
general defenses available to the defendant under tort
law, and is based on the premise that if the defendants
had no intention of causing the injury and the plaintiff
was injured as a result, they will not be held
accountable. This defense allows a defendant to
remove the liability or claim its waiver due to the fault
of the unforeseen circumstances.

Essentials of Inevitable Accident in Tort

There must be an accident;

1. There must be an accident;
2. The accident must be unforeseeable, unintentional and
unavoidable;
3. There must have been exercise of care, caution and skill as
expected of a reasonable person in those circumstances. That is
to say, there must be no negligence on part of the person; and
 4. It must result in harm, injury, damage, or loss to another person
(the claimant).
cident must be unforeseeable, unintentional and unavoidable;
There must have been exercise of care, caution and skill as expected
of a reasonable person in those circumstances. That is to say, there
must be no negligence on part of the person; and
It must result in harm, injury, damage, or loss to another person (the
claimant).
 CASE: Vedantacharya v. Highways Deptt. of South
Arcot

Citation: 1972 1 CompCas 168 SC, (1987) 3 SCC 400

Court: Supreme Court

Facts of the case

On November 14, 1960 at about 5.30 a.m. a public transport vehicle plunged into a
stream as the culvert over which it was passing gave way. As a result of the accident one
V. Santhangopalan died. The appellants, his parents, filed the suit out of which the
appeal arises to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of damages. The suit was filed
against the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company and the Highways Department
of the State of Tamil Nadu. The trial court absolved the owner of the vehicle and
insurance company on the ground that the accident was not due to any fault of the
driver of the vehicle or any defect of the vehicle. The trial court held that the very
collapse of the culvert raised a presumption of negligence on the part of the Highways
Department of the Government and on that footing awarded a sum of Rs. 9,100/- by way
of damages. The Government of Tamil Nadu, who, in our opinion, should not have
contested a claim of this nature and who ought not to have, in any case, preferred an
appeal, did choose to file an appeal to the High Court. The plaintiffs preferred a
memorandum of cross-objection claiming a further sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Unfortunately,
the appeal of the Government of Tamil Nadu was accepted and the cross-objection of
the plaintiffs was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court took the view that the
culvert gave way because of the downpour of rain during the preceding week and the
breach of a small tank upstream. The conclusion of the High Court was based primarily
on the report of the Assistant Engineer (Highways), Vridhachalam to the Divisional
Engineer (Highways), Cuddalore. This report explained the causes for the collapse of the
culvert but gave no indication of any action that was taken to prevent such occurrences.
Surely, heavy rain and flood are not beyond the contemplation and anticipation of the
Highways Department and when bridges and culverts are constructed we expect the
department to make suitable provision for strengthening the culverts and bridges against
heavy rain and flood. The report gives no indication of any anticipatory action taken by
the Highways Department to prevent such happenings. We think that merely because
the cause of the accident was heavy rain and flood, Highways Department cannot on
that account alone claim to be absolved unless there is something further to indicate
that necessary preventive measures had been taken anticipating such rain and flood.
There is nothing to indicate that any such anticipatory action was taken in the present
case. We, therefore, think that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the suit.
We, therefore, set aside the judgments of the High Court and pass a decree in favour of
the plaintiffs. The appellants will get Rs. 14,000/- with interest from the date of the
decree of the High Court. They will be entitled to their costs throughout. It appears that
a sum of Rs. 6,018/- was deposited by the Highways Department pursuant to the
judgment of the trial court but this amount was deposited back by the appellants during
the pendency of the appeal in this Court.

Issues involved:
Wrongful Death and Damages: The primary issue is
the wrongful death of V. Santhangopalan as a result of the accident. The
appellants, who are Santhangopalan's parents, filed the lawsuit seeking to recover
damages totaling Rs. 25,000 from the various defendants.
Defendants: The case involves multiple defendants, including:
● The owner of the public transport vehicle.
● The insurance company covering the vehicle.
● The Highways Department of the State of Tamil Nadu.
Negligence and Liability: The central question in the case is whether any of
the defendants can be held liable for the accident and the resulting death of
Santhangopalan. The trial court absolved the vehicle owner and insurance
company, finding no fault on the part of the driver or any defect in the vehicle.
Instead, the trial court held that the Highways Department of the Government
was presumptively negligent due to the collapse of the culvert.
Presumption of Negligence: A significant issue is the presumption of
negligence against the Highways Department based on the collapse of the
culvert. The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiffs based on this
presumption.

JUDGEMENT:
The Madras High Court, on the basis of Engineer’s Report, which highlighted
that the culvert was sound a day before and normal traffic has passed through it,
held that it was an inevitable accident. The Supreme Court reversed this
decision and held that the Highways Department could not be absolved from
their liability by claiming that the accident occurred due to heavy rain and flood
as there was failure and negligence on their part to take necessary preventive
measures and anticipatory action to strengthen the bridges against heavy rain
and floods. Accordingly, the defendants were held liable

LAWS REFERRED
Contract Act, 1872 Sec 56
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Sec 110C, Sec 110D, Sec
110B
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 Sec 1A
 Self analysis:
This judgment underscores the principle that government
departments responsible for public infrastructure must ensure its safety and take
anticipatory action to prevent accidents, even if the immediate cause of an
accident is a natural event. Failure to do so can result in legal liability and the
award of damages to the affected parties.
 CASE: 2
Krishna Patra vs Orissa State Electricity Board
Citation: II (1998) ACC 367, 1998 ACJ 155, AIR 1997 Ori 109

Court: Orisaa High court

Facts of the case:

A couple was walking on the streets of Odisha when the wife
met with a dangerous accident. The wife came into contact
with a live conductor who was lying on the road naked. The
condition was critical. She was rushed to the hospital where
she died. The petitioner, her husband, claimed compensation of
Rs. 1,00,000 from the Odisha state electricity board. The
petitioner stated that the mishap was exclusively due to
negligence. Proper care and caution were not taken on the part
of the electricity board; hence the board should be held liable
for the compensation. The electricity board argued that the
incident was an inevitable accident. The incident was out of
their control. Soon after an electrical inspector was appointed
to examine the status of the conductor and the reason for its
fall. Surprisingly, the electrical inspector showed a different
picture of the case. The live conductor had outlived its age. It’s
already been more than 30 years and was very weak. The
reason for the fall was its aging and has become mechanically
unsound. The police investigation report also stated that the
death of the women was due to electrification.

Laws refered: Electricity rules 1956 R 91

The constituinional provinces:

 Issues involved

Negligence vs. Inevitable Accident: The primary issue in this case is whether
the incident was the result of negligence on the part of the Odisha State
Electricity Board or if it was truly an inevitable accident that was beyond their
control. The petitioner (the husband of the deceased) is claiming that the board's
negligence led to the accident, while the board is arguing that it was not within
their control.
Causation: The court will need to determine whether the live conductor coming
into contact with the wife was the direct cause of her death. The electrical
inspector findings and the police investigation report suggesting that the death
was due to electrification are crucial in establishing causation.
Age and Condition of the Conductor: The age and condition of the live
conductor are significant factors. If it is established that the conductor was old
and mechanically unsound, this could support the argument that the Odisha
State Electricity Board was negligent in maintaining their infrastructure.
Duty of Care: Another issue is whether the electricity board had a duty of care
to maintain and inspect its equipment regularly to prevent such accidents. If it is
determined that they had a duty of care and failed to fulfill it, this could
strengthen the petitioner's case. Quantum of Compensation: If liability is
established, the court will need to determine the appropriate amount of
compensation to be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking Rs.
1,00,000 as compensation for the loss of his wife.

JUDGEMENTS:
The incident was not an inevitable accident. Proper due care was not taken. The
electricity board has not examined the conductor from time to time. This
accident could have been avoided by regular inspection of the conductors and
the wires. We can see that all the elements necessary to prove the negligence is
present. Electricity boards should be held liable for the death of women. But the
electricity board pleaded the defense of inevitable accident which was rejected
by the court and compensation was awarded for Rs. 50,000 to the defendant.
Analysis:
The fact that the live conductor was naked and lying on the crowded
street. It is very obvious that in such a crowded place anyone can come in
contact with the conductor which is very dangerous for human life. Electricity
board claiming that the whole incident was an inevitable accident. All proper
due care was taken and the accident was out of scope. But as we can see from
the report of the electrical inspector the state of the conductor was not great. It
was overused and already aged. There is a clear indication of negligence on the
part of the electricity board. Moreover, an endeavor which is indulged in a
perilous or inalienably risky industry which represents a potential danger to the
wellbeing and security of the people working there and living in the
encompassing territories, owe a duty to make sure that no mischief results to
anybody because of unsafe or innately hazardous nature of the action.
 CASE:3
Ompal Singh Sharma And 3 Others vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd
Citation: 2017 Latest Caselaw 2038 ALL
Court: Allahbad High court
Facts of case:
The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident
Claim Petition before the Tribunal for seeking compensation under Motor
vehicle act 1988 for the death of Prince Sharma (deceased) who lost his life in a
road accident. As per averments made in claim petition, on 30.7.2011, the
deceased - Prince Sharma was traveling in a Wagon-R Car No. U.P.-21 S-1101
with Mohd. Arif Jameel, Assistant Excise Commissioner, Bijnor, after
performing their duties from Bijnor to Moradabad. The car was driven by
driver- Jameel Ahmad- respondent no. 3. At about 2:30 p.m., when the car
reached a little ahead of Gol Bag Tiraha within the jurisdiction of Police Station,
Haldaur, suddenly a wild animal Maha ( Blue bull / Neelgay), came in front of
car, the driver of Car had lost his control over the Car and dashed against the
tree and fell down in a ditch. In this accident, Prince Sharma and Mohd. Jameel
Ahmad sustained serious injuries and Prince Sharma ( deceased) died on the
spot.

Law Referred: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec 166, Sec 140,
Sec 169

Constitutional provinces: NO Province

Issues involved:
Liability of the Driver: It appears that the driver of the car, Jameel Ahmad
(respondent no. 3), was at the wheel when the accident occurred. The issue of
liability may arise concerning whether the driver was at fault or whether
theaccident was solely caused by the sudden appearance of the wild animal
(Blue bull / Neelgay) on the road.
Contributory Negligence: The extent of negligence, if any, on the part of Prince
Sharma or any other person involved may also be an issue. It needs to be
determined whether anyone, including the deceased or the driver, contributed to
the accident through their actions or omissions.
Jurisdiction and Location of the Accident: The location of the accident,
specifically whether it occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station,
Haldaur, is important for determining which authorities have jurisdiction over
the case and which laws apply.
Insurance and Compensation Amount: Depending on the circumstances, the
insurance company or the driver may be responsible for providing the
compensation. The issue of the appropriate compensation amount will also need
to be addressed.
Wild Animal Encounter: The presence of a wild animal on the road and its
sudden appearance is a critical factor in this case. It raises questions about
whether such occurrences are foreseeable and whether the driver should have
taken precautions.
Evidence and Witness Testimonies: The case may involve presenting evidence
such as eyewitness testimonies, accident reports, and expert opinions to
establish the sequence of events, the cause of the accident, and the extent of
liability.
Compliance with Legal Procedures: It's essential to determine whether the
claimants followed the proper legal procedures for filing a Motor Accident
Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGEMENT:
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
has submitted that impugned judgment and award is against the law. Learned
Tribunal has held that the driver of the car was not negligent but this
finding is erroneous because if the vehicle would
have been driven with proper care and caution, the
accident could have been avoided. Learned Tribunal
has adopted incorrect approach, because the
vehicle was not being driven at a normal speed. In
fact, the driver lost the control on staring and the
vehicle dashed into the tree.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance the objected vehemently has
Company submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and
submitted that it is established on record that a blue bull appeared in front of car,
tired his best to save the accident but the car dashedinto a tree. Hence, in this
accident, the car driver was not negligent. It is next submitted by by learned
counsel that the father of the deceased is produced
before the Tribunal as PW-1 and a so called eye witness Brijesh Sharma is
produced as PW-2. Both these witnesses have deposed in their testimony that in
the said accident, the car driver was not negligent and the accident had taken
place due to sudden appears of blue bull. Hence, the appellants have failed to
prove that the car driver was negligent under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, the claim petition can succeeds if the negligence of the driver is proved.

Analysis:
it appears that the claimants-appellants are seeking compensation for the death
of Prince Sharma as a result of the road accident caused by the unexpected
presence of a wild animal on the road. The case may involve determining
liability and assessing the appropriate compensation under the provisions of the
Motor Vehicle Act of 1988, which governs motor vehicle accidents and
compensation for victims and their families. The key issues to be addressed in
this case may include the driver's responsibility, the circumstances surrounding
the accident,

and the extent of compensation to be awarded to the claimants.

CASE : Smt. Praveen Rawat And Others vs Anuroop Singh And
Another on 29 March, 2022

Citation:
Court:Allahbad High Court

Facts of case:
The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident
Claim Petition before the Tribunal for seeking the compensation under Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Dinesh Kumar Singh Rawat (deceased) in a
road accident with the averments that on 28.12.2004 at about 7:00 PM the
deceased was traveling from Lucknow to Lakhimpurkhiri in car bearing no. U.P.
32 X 3366. The driver of the car was driving the vehicle very rashly and
negligenlty and at a very high speed, all of sudden, a blue bull (Neelgay) came
on the way. The driver tried to save the blue bull and in that process dashed
the car into the tree. After dashing into the tree, the car overturned. In this
accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on way to the
hospital for treatment.

Issues involved:

Negligence and Rash Driving: The claimants have alleged that the driver of the
car was driving recklessly and negligently at a very high speed. One of the
primary issues in this case would be to determine whether the driver's conduct
amounted to negligence and if it was a significant contributing factor to the
accident.

Presence of a Blue Bull (Neelgay): The accident occurred because a blue bull
(Neelgay) suddenly appeared on the road. An important issue would be to
establish the presence of the blue bull and whether the driver's attempt to avoid
it was reasonable under the circumstances.

Causation: It needs to be determined whether the accident, as described, was the

proximate cause of Dinesh Kumar Singh Rawat's injuries and subsequent death.
This involves examining the sequence of events leading to the accident and the
injuries sustained by the deceased.

Overturning of the Car: The fact that the car overturned after colliding with a
tree is significant. The tribunal would need to assess whether the overturning of
the car was solely due to the driver's actions or if other factors contributed to it.

Extent of Injuries and Medical Treatment: The seriousness of the injuries

sustained by the deceased and the circumstances of his transportation to the
hospital are important. It will be necessary to establish the cause of death and
whether prompt medical attention could have made a difference.

Liability of the Driver: Depending on the findings related to the driver's

conduct, the issue of his liability for the accident and the subsequent death of
the deceased will be central. If he is found to be negligent, he may be held liable
for compensation.

Compensation: If liability is established, the tribunal will need to determine the

appropriate compensation to be awarded to the claimants-appellants under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This compensation may cover
medical expenses, loss of income, and other damages.

Contributory Negligence: There might also be a question of whether the

deceased shared some responsibility for the accident through his actions or
inactions. The concept of contributory negligence may come into play.
Judgement
The finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was the result of 'No
Negligence' is not sustainable in the eye of law. The accident was caused by the
negligence of the driver. The quantum of compensation payable to the
appellants-claimants will be decided by the court, taking into account the oral
and documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines
issued by the Honble Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General