MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SRIGANGANAGAR Vs. SHRIDHAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Civil Suit No. 102 of 1985, whereby, the suit preferred by the plaintiff Dr. Shridhar Sharma (respondent in Appeal No. 119 of 1989 and appellant in Appeal No. 141 of 1989 herein) for compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000, has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 7,500 against the defendant Municipal Council, Sriganganagar (appellant in Appeal No. 119 of 1989 and respondent in Appeal No. 141 of 1989 herein). The plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree to the extent its claim for compensation has been disallowed and so also by award of the interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the amount, instead of 10 per cent claimed by him. The defendant has preferred the appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court whereby the decree for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,500 has been passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the defendant Municipal Council has constructed a small bridge over a nala near the shop of Suganchand Halwai at Sriganganagar. On 28.7.1982 at about 8 p.m. the plaintiff, a Lecturer in Biology in Government College, Sriganganagar while passing through the said bridge on scooter met with an accident. It is alleged by the plaintiff that there was no sufficient arrangement for the light and, therefore, while passing through the said bridge, he could not see the ditch near the chamber of the bridge and consequently, he could not keep the balance of the scooter and fell down on the road resulting in fracture in the bone of his right hand. It was alleged that on account of the fracture, his right hand was plastered for a period of two months. It was further alleged that the plaintiff suffered physical and mental agony as a result of the injuries sustained. He was deprived from performing his daily work. It was alleged that it was only on account of gross negligence on the part of the local authority and its failure to discharge its duties for maintaining the road in proper condition and insufficiency of the light, the accident occurred. The plaintiff claimed compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000 from the defendants. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff served the defendant Municipal Council, Sriganganagar so also the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sriganganagar raising demand for the compensation. The Market Committee was impleaded as party defendant in the suit for the reason that the road on which accident occurred falls within the Market Committee area. The amount of compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000 was claimed by plaintiff out of which Rs. 7,500 were claimed as the general damages and Rs. 7,500 for the loss of pleasure.

(3.) The suit was contested by both the defendants by filing their separate written statement. The defendant Municipal Council did not dispute the factum of injury sustained by the plaintiff. However, it was stated that there was adequate arrangement of the light and if the bridge was in broken condition to some extent then for that the Municipal Council cannot be held liable. It was stated that the accident appears to have occurred on account of negligence of plaintiff himself in driving the scooter. It was further stated that the Municipal Council had no information regarding any ditch on the bridge and there was sufficient light existing on the disputed road. It was further pleaded that it may be that immediately before the accident, the road might have got damaged by passing of some heavy vehicle, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the defendant Municipal Council. The maintainability of the suit as against the Municipal Council was questioned on the ground that the concerned area falls within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee. Defendant also contested quantum of compensation. The receipt of the notice was also denied and it was contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of prior notice to the defendant Municipal Council.