Decided on November 22,1967

K.C.KUMARAN Appellant


- (1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1959 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode, has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the decision of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 10,000 from the defendants by way of damages.
(2.) The plaintiff's case was that on the 15th of May, 1958, while he was proceeding on a motor cycle from west to the cast along Gandhi Road in Calicut City, a Hill man car owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant dashed against his motor cycle as a result of which the plaintiff sustained grievous injuries on his right leg necessitating his treatment as an in patient in the Government Headquarters Hospital for more than six months. It is alleged that the accident was caused on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the car who suddenly reversed the vehicle and later moved southwards without sounding the horn or indicating the direction in which he was trying to proceed. It is averred in the plaint that the ear was driven right across the road at a very high speed so suddenly that the plaintiff could not take any action to avert the collision and that there was no negligence whatever on the part of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff had been earning about Rs. 1,000 per month as a timber merchant and that on account of the injuries caused by the accident he was totally disabled from attending to his business for over 8 months. The damages caused to him on this account have been estimated in the plaint at Rs. 6,666.60. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,000 for the expenses of medical treatment and also a further sum of Rs. 1,000 as compensation for the physical and mental strain caused to him on account of the injuries. The plaint claim in the aggregate has, however, been limited to Rs. 10,000. The third defendant is the insurance company with whom the first defendant's vehicle had been insured.
(3.) The defendants contended that the accident occurred because of the plaintiff's own rash and negligent handling of the motor cycle and not on account of any negligence on the part of the driver of the car. They pleaded that the plaintiff had absolutely no cause of action against the defendants and was not entitled to recover any amount from them by way of damages. They also questioned the various items of damages claimed in the plaint and put the plaintiff to strict proof therewith.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.