JUDGMENT : Aggarwal, J. 1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay not only runs the Municipal Government of Greater Bombay but it also provides transport through the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking popularly known as "BEST" or "BEST Undertaking". The Corporation challenges the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay on the point of negligence. 2. It is not in dispute that one Tatoba Shivaji, the victim, and' the alleged eyewitness Shravan Shidu Kamble were in the service of the Appellant-Corporation on the day of the accident. The deceased Tatoba was a bus conductor and Kamble was a bus driver. Both of them were off duty. Under the terms of their service, they were entitled to a free bus ride while off duty, provided while travelling they were in their uniforms and travelled standing in the space on the foot-board at the rear. The foot-board is open and wide and is used for boarding or alighting from a double decker bus in which the victim travelled by standing. At the material time on 6th April, 1970, the victim and his co-employee had come to the Transport House Building in connection with withdrawal of money from the Corporation Credit Society. Thereafter both of them went for shopping. At about 2.30 p.m. they boarded a double decker bus near the Electric House junction to go to Byculla market. When the said bus was taking a right turn to go to the Ballard Estate side near the Reserve Bank of India and Grindlays Bank Limited building, it is alleged, the driver of the said bus applied the brakes suddenly, as a result of which Tatoba fell out of the bus and suffered injuries. He was removed to the hospital where he died on the following day. The deceased Tatoba was survived by his two wives Akatai, the Applicant who filed the present application, and Sushilabai, a minor daughter Surekha from Sushilabai, a married daughter Vatsala from Akatai, and his mother Chandrabai. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. 3. The Corporation resisted the claim. While admitting that the deceased Tatoba travelled by the said bus, it was contended that the Corporation was not aware of the place where the deceased boarded the bus and his destination. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. 3. The Corporation resisted the claim. While admitting that the deceased Tatoba travelled by the said bus, it was contended that the Corporation was not aware of the place where the deceased boarded the bus and his destination. According to the Corporation, the correct facts were that on 6th April, 1970 at about 3 p.m., one Savitra Jijaba Gite was driving a BEST bus bearing No. MRT-1322 and was proceeding from Holiday Camp to Victoria Garden. At all material times the said driver was driving the said bus with due care, caution, skill, with proper look-out, on the correct side of the road and at a slow speed. Whilst the said bus was proceeding cautiously as aforesaid and when the said bus came near the material spot, there were shouts and immediately the bus was stopped. It was learnt that the deceased, who was an off duty conductor in the Undertaking and who was travelling by the said bus standing at the rear foot-board fell down and sustained injuries. In these circumstances, it was contended that the deceased failed to take due care of himself and was standing dangerously on the footboard and fell off from the bus on account of his own carelessness. It was further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions and in the alternative, it was submitted that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. In. further alternative, it was submitted that the accident in question was the result of an unavoidable accident. In these circumstances, the Corporation could not be held liable to pay any compensation and/or damages to the Applicant. 4. At the trial, two issues, namely, (1) whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the BEST bus, and (2) whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the deceased himself, were framed. On behalf of the Applicant Akatai, she examined herself, Shravan Shidu Kamble who was in the service of the BEST Undertaking as a driver and who was accompanying the deceased at the material time, Namdeo Mohan Dengle, a Sub-Inspector, and Vasant Jayawant Velinkar, a formal witness in the employment of the BEST Employees' Corporation Credit Society. The Corporation examined Rajendraprasad Singh, the conductor of the concerned bus. The Corporation examined Rajendraprasad Singh, the conductor of the concerned bus. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the Corporation's driver was negligent and fixed the liability at Rs. 22,250/- with interest thereon. 5. Shri Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Corporation, has challenged only the finding regarding negligence and taken me through the evidence for that purpose- 6. The Applicant Akatai naturally spoke nothing about the circumstances in which the accident occurred as she had no personal knowledge of the same. Her sole eye-witness was Shravan Shidu Kamble who testified that he was working as a driver with the Undertaking on route No. 70. On the day of the incident, he had gone to the Office of the BEST Employees' Corporation Credit Society (Transport House, Colaba, Bombay) along with the deceased to collect their respective cheques of loans applied for by them. The deceased and witness Shravan had stood sureties for each other. They collected their cheques and cashed them at about 11 a.m. Thereafter, both of them did some shopping and got into the bus at the Electric House junction where the bus had stopped because of the red signal. Both of them were to get down at Byculla Market bus stop to make purchases of vegetables. The deceased was standing on the foot-board and the witness was standing on his right hand side just inside the bus near the stairs. They were the only two persons standing in the bus. They were not entitled to occupy a seat in the bus. The deceased was holding a hand bag in his left hand near the first stair and with his right hand he was holding the grab handle fixed to the stairs. The witness further stated that near the junction of the Reserve Bank, the bus took a right turn to go to the Ballard Estate and at that time the speed was about 20 miles per hour. After completing the turn, the driver applied the brakes and the bus stopped suddenly. The deceased fell out from the bus on the road. While the deceased was falling out, the driver released the brakes and the bus went about 20 yards ahead before coming to a stop. The driver and the conductor of the bus removed the deceased in a taxi to the St. George's Hospital. The witness also accompanied them in the taxi. While the deceased was falling out, the driver released the brakes and the bus went about 20 yards ahead before coming to a stop. The driver and the conductor of the bus removed the deceased in a taxi to the St. George's Hospital. The witness also accompanied them in the taxi. Later he left the hospital to inform Akatai, the wife of the deceased. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he had been in the service of the Undertaking for 25 years. He had known the deceased for 19 years and both of them were working together for nearly 4 years on the same bus. The bus which they had boarded was route No. 3. The deceased throughout held the bar in the bus fixed to the stair-case with his hand. The witness admitted that he knew that statements of witnesses who had seen the accident were recorded by the police, but he did not think it necessary to go to the police station to give his statement. He denied that he had got down at Museum and did not go to the hospital along with the deceased. He agreed that it was the conductor of the bus who had removed the injured to the hospital. He went in another taxi to the hospital. He also agreed that the driver of the bus had not accompanied him. He was also subjected to cross-examination as to the manner in which he had held the bars attached to the bus and the way in which the deceased had held such bars during their standing journey. 7. On behalf of the Corporation, Rajendra Prasad Singh, the conductor of the bus, stated that he was a conductor on the lower deck. The deceased and witness Shravan had boarded the bus at the Electric House and both of them were in uniform. The bus had halted at the traffic junction near the Reserve Bank. After the bus had taken a turn to the right side and entered the road towards Ballard Estate, the deceased fell down. He stated that the deceased was holding the grab handle only with his right hand near the stair-case. He had not seen the deceased falling down. When they came to know that some one had fallen out, he had rung the bell and the bus driver applied the brakes. He stated that the deceased was holding the grab handle only with his right hand near the stair-case. He had not seen the deceased falling down. When they came to know that some one had fallen out, he had rung the bell and the bus driver applied the brakes. He also stated that the driver of the bus had not accompanied him to the hospital. He denied that the deceased was holding the handle marked in red in Ex. 1B or that the driver took a sharp turn at the junction and there was a heavy jerk. He also denied that when the bus approached the junction for turning towards Ballard Estate, the green signal for the traffic was on. He was busy issuing tickets to the passengers throughout till the accident took place. The driver of the bus also came out after the witness put the deceased in the taxi. He did not remember if witness Shravan was present to help him to put the deceased in the taxi. He alone accompanied the injured in the taxi to the hospital. Shravan came after the deceased was admitted to the hospital. 8. Shri Sawant submitted that the evidence of witness Shravan suffers from serious infirmities and discrepancies and as such his evidence should be totally discarded. In the first place, according to Shri Sawant, the statement of witness Shravan was not recorded by the police. He himself is a bus driver of the Undertaking and was well aware that it was necessary to make a statement to the police soon after the accident. Secondly, the version of witness Shravan that he had accompanied the injured in the same taxi to the hospital is falsified by the evidence of the Undertaking's witness Rajendraprasad. Further, the statement of witness Shravan that the bus driver had accompanied the injured to the hospital is falsified on his own admission. These three circumstances no doubt have their impact on the version of witness Shravan. But these circumstances are not sufficient to rule out the presence of Shravan at the time of accident. The evidence of Rajendraprasad is not firm so as to disbelieve Shravan about his presence. Rajendraprasad had seen two employees of the Undertaking in uniform standing near-about the open space near the stair-case going to the upper deck. His evidence shows that he was busy in issuing tickets. The evidence of Rajendraprasad is not firm so as to disbelieve Shravan about his presence. Rajendraprasad had seen two employees of the Undertaking in uniform standing near-about the open space near the stair-case going to the upper deck. His evidence shows that he was busy in issuing tickets. He does not state that at the time of the accident he was watching the deceased or his companion. He came to know of the deceased falling from the bus after he learnt from others. He seems to be quite clear of his coming to know after the deceased had fallen out. It was thereafter that he rang the bell in order to get the bus brought to a halt. It was suggested to Shravan that he had disembarked near the Museum, i.e., on the way to the Ballard Estate. But this line of cross-examination was not pursued, nor any attempt was made to establish this fact by leading evidence. It is true that the deceased was known to Shravan for about 19 years and both of them were working for about 4 years on the same route and on the same bus as a driver and conductor. Obviously Shravan would be interested in the deceased and the members of his family. But this circumstance of being a colleague or coworker is not sufficient to reject the evidence straight-away. As indicated earlier, the evidence of Rajendraprasad being ambiguous, in as much as he could not unequivocally vouchsafe the absence of Shravan when the accident occurred, I am inclined to accept the evidence of Shravan. The infirmities pointed out by Shri Sawant do not rule out the presence of Shravan at the time of the accident. 9. In this connection, it is important to note that the driver of the bus was not examined on behalf of the Corporation. He was driving the bus and he was the proper person to testify as to what happened with the bus after it took a turn towards Ballard Estate till it came to a halt. 10. Shri Kurien, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submitted that having regard to the fact that the deceased was a passenger in the bus, regardless of the fact whether he was sitting or standing in the bus, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would be attracted to the present case. 10. Shri Kurien, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submitted that having regard to the fact that the deceased was a passenger in the bus, regardless of the fact whether he was sitting or standing in the bus, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would be attracted to the present case. Shri Kurien referred to Terrell's Law of Running-Down Cases, Butterworths, 3rd edition, at page 3. The proposition stated therein is that in some cases arising out of road accidents, it is unnecessary for the Plaintiff to prove actual negligence on the part of the Defendant, as the law will infer from the nature of the accident that the driver of the Defendant's vehicle has been negligent. In other words, the Plaintiff may prove facts which in themselves do not establish an actual breach of duty by the Defendant, but from which the law will assume that the burden of proving negligence has been discharged by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant will be in the position of having to meet a prima facie case. If he does not, or cannot, rebut that prima facie case, judgment will be given against him. The learned Commentator does not overlook about the conflict of judicial opinion as to the exact limits within which this principle may be applied in road accident cases. One of the classes to which the application of the above doctrine is considered is "damage caused to a passenger". At page 25, the statement made is that there is a contractual relationship with the person who has undertaken to convey the passenger, and the question has to be considered as to the precise nature of the duty owed by the carrier to the passenger. A passenger in a vehicle may be in one of two classes. He may be carried gratuitously by the owner of the vehicle or else he may be carried for reward. The learned author further adds that the driver of a motor vehicle taking passengers gratuitously must use reasonable care in driving the vehicle, and if as a result of a failure in this duty a passenger is injured, the driver will be liable. 11. Shri Sawant did not dispute that the deceased as an employee of the undertaking was entitled to a free standing ride. 11. Shri Sawant did not dispute that the deceased as an employee of the undertaking was entitled to a free standing ride. The fact that the deceased travelled standing and was not occupying a seat would not dilute or narrow down the reasonable care required to be taken of a passenger in an omnibus as it is common experience that passengers even on payment of the requisite fare are allowed to travel standing on account of too many passengers and too few buses. The fact that the deceased was travelling while standing as a passenger cast a duty on the undertaking to carry him safely. In my view, in such a case, the principle of res ipsa loquitur would apply. The fact that the deceased was travelling as passenger was not in dispute. Even otherwise the Corporation in its written statement had admitted that he was travelling while standing at the rear foot-board of the bus. The Corporation failed to establish that the Undertaking's driver drove the said bus with due care, caution, skill or with proper lookout and at a slow speed as pleaded. The Corporation also failed to establish that the deceased failed to take care of himself or was standing dangerously on the footboard and he fell off from the bus on account of his own carelessness or that the accident occurred solely due to his negligence. In my view, therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal will have to be confirmed.