UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT Vs. RAM MILAN
LAWS(ALL)-1965-9-8
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on September 17,1965

UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT Appellant
VERSUS
RAM MILAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LIMPUS V. LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS CO. [REFERRED TO]
BARWICK V. ENGLISH JOINT STOCK BANK [REFERRED TO]
RICKETTS V. THOS. TILLING LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ENGELHARI V. FARRANT AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
BEARD V. LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS CO. [REFERRED TO]
GWILLIAM V. TWIST [REFERRED TO]
MARSH V. MOORES [REFERRED TO]
CANADIAN PACIFIC RY. V. LOCKHART [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR R.U.M. SERVICE LTD.,RASIPURAM V. RAMASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR NAND SINGH V. ABHYABALA DEBI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GODABARISH SATPATHY VS. BRUNDABAN MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-1983-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GOVINDBHAI JAKHUBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.U. Beg, J. - (1.)THIS is a first appeal by the U. P. Government which was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court. It arises out of a suit for damages filed by respondent no 1 Ram Milan who was the plaintiff in the trial Court. Respondent No. 1 Mohd. Rasool and respondent No. 3 Jharkhande were the servants of defendant No. 1, the U. P. Government, and were defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the trial Court Along with the appeal we have a cross-objection filed by Ram Milan, the plaintiff THIS judgment disposes of both the first appeal filed by defendant No. 1 and the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff.
(2.)THE suit of the plaintiff was based on the allegation that defendant No. 1 had been carrying on motor bus service in the district of Gonda for the last several years, that on the 2nd of June, 1952 a bus belonging to defendant No. 1 left Wazirganj for Gonda at about 1.30 P. M THE plaintiff was a passenger in the upper class Defendant No. 2 Mohd Rasool was the driver of the said bus, and defendant No. 3 Jharkhande was its mechanic Owing to the negligence, misconduct and wrongful act of defendant No. 1's servants, i.e., Mohd Rasool and Jharkhande, there was an accident on the 2nd of June, 1952 which resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff on the head chin, knees and left hand THE bones of the plaintiff's left hand were also broken. He bled profusely THE plaintiff along with other injured persons was brought to the Sadar Hospital at Gonda in an unconscious condition He regained consciousness after five days THE plaintiff remained an indoor patient in the Sadar Hospital, Gonda on account of the aforesaid injuries from 2-6-1952 to 10-8-1952.
During this period he could neither attend to his work as a District Board teacher at Wazirgani nor could he look after his household duties and cultivation. The plaintiff had outside treatment also. Subsequently the plaintiff had to get himself admitted in the Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals, Lucknow, for his treatment. The plaintiff was admitted there on the 31st of May 1953 and remained there till the 12th of June, 1953 On account of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff he could not join service till the 10th of April. 1953, and was deprived of one of his hands permanently The plaintiff alleged that he had suffered loss to the extent of Rs 30,000/-. He, accordingly, claimed a decree for this amount against all the three defendants.

The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 the U. P. Government only even though written statements were filed by all the three defendants Defendant No. 1 admitted that bus No. 2366 which had met with the accident on the 2nd of June, 1952, belonged to it. It further admitted that defendant No. 2 Mohd. Rasool was the driver of the said bus, that defendant No. 3 Jharkhande was its mechanic, and that both defendants 2 and 3 were its servants. The main plea raised by defendant No. 1 was that defendant No. 3, i.e. Jharkhande, was merely a mechanic and was not authorised by defendant No. 1 to drive the bus. Defendant No. 1 was, therefore, not liable for any act done by defendant No. 3. The version of defendant No. 1 was that the bus had developed some machine trouble at Lakarmandi and defendant No. 3 was deputed to remove the defects of the bus. In order to test the soundness of the machinery of the said bus defendant No. 3 took the steering wheel in his own hands from Wazirganj without any authority and the bus met with the accident when he was driving it.

(3.)THE case set up by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statements was that defendant No. 3 was a mechanic employed in the U. P. Government Roadways and was deputed to remove the defects of bus no. 2366, that the aforesaid bus had started from Lakarmandi on 2-6-1952 for Gonda and defendant No. 3 was also coming back to Gonda by the same bus and that when the bus reached Wazirganj it again developed some trouble and did not start. THE driver, defendant No. 2, reported the matter to defendant No. 3, the mechanic, who examined the machinery and the bus and removed the defect discovered by him THEreafter, defendant No. 3 took the steering wheel in his own hands and started driving the bus in order to test and ascertain as to whether the defect in the bus was removed or not After going some distance a goat came in the way, and in his attempt to save the goat, defendant No. 3 who was driving the bus, turned it to the right side THE goat was saved, but the bus swerved to the left, went out of control and dashed against a tree. This was, therefore, a case of accident beyond their control and they are not liable for damages. Defendants Nos. 2 and 8, however, did not produce any evidence in support of the version set out on their behalf and the case proceeded ex parte against them.
The trial Court framed a number of issues in the case and gave its findings to the effect that bus No. 2366 belonged to defendant No. 1, that it had started from Lakarmandi on 2-6-1952, that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the servants of defendant No. 1, that defendant No. 2 was the driver and defendant No. 3 was the mechanic attached to the said bus, that Ram Milan plaintiff was travelling in the said bus on that date, that after the bus had left Wazirganj for Gonda the driver of the bus handed over the steering wheel to defendant No. 3, the mechanic and that the bus dashed against a tree and met with the accident while the mechanic was driving the bus at the instance of the driver. In view of the aforesaid findings the trial Court came to the Conclusion that defendant No. 1, i.e. the U. P. Government which was the employer of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, was liable for the damages along with its servants, viz. defendants Nos. 2 and 3. So far as the amount of damages is concerned the trial Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that damages to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- were suffered by him. The trial Court found that an amount of Rs. 5,569/- was the approximate amount of damage suffered by the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff a decree for the said amount. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court the U. P. Government has filed the present appeal in this Court.

;


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