GHEWARLAL Vs. MUNNI LAL GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Sec. 96, Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28-8-81 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 17,636.64 against appellants in a suit for damages.

(2.) The facts may be put in narrow compass, plaintiff respondent used to ply bus RJQ 1745 on Jodhpur-Jalore route. On 15-2-73 when the bus started from Neemla bus stand, it was on its left side but at the same time truck RJQ 6739 came from Pali side and dashed against the bus. It was averred that the truck was being driven by Poosa Ram rashly and negligently. Besides that the passengers of the bus sustained injuries, many of them died, the bus was also damaged. It was averred that the plaintiff had to spend Rs. 18,154 on the repairs of the bus and that the plaintiff had to suffer because the bus could not be used for many days. A total sum of Rs. 35,000 was claimed. In the written statement, the factum of accident was not denied. However, it was averred that the truck was being driven at the speed of 10-15 miles per hour but the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and it had dashed against the truck. It was also averred that there was minor damage in the bus and there was no need of getting its entire body renewed. It was also stated that the plaintiff could have got the bus repaired at Jodhpur and he was not entitled to the amount he spent in taking the bus to Nathdwara for repairs. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed 6 issues which are to the following effect:-

(3.) In support of his case, plaintiff Munnilal entered into the witness box and examined PW2 Daud Khan, PW 3 Suresh Chand, PW 4 Kailash Puri, PW 5 Gafoor Khan and PW 6 Nandlal. In rebuttal, defendant Ghewarlal entered into witness box and examined DW 2 Poosa Ram, DW 3 Ganga Ram and DW 4 Bansilal. The learned District Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, found issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Under Issue No. 2 it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,636.64 ps. only.