U.P. STATE Vs. RAM NATH JAIDKA AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-1977-7-43
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 26,1977

U.P. State Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Nath Jaidka Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H.N. Kapoor, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1969 of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, who was acting as Accidents Claims Tribunal in Original suit No. 7 of 1967. The claim of the Plaintiff -Respondent was allowed for Rs. 18,800.00 with proportionate costs, although he has claimed Rs. 25,000.00. Dr. Ram Nath Jaidka was a passenger in Roadways Bus No. U.P.D. 4229 on 19.6.1966 when he met with an accident and the bus fell into a Khad on the left side of the road and turned. Dr. Jaidka received several injuries. His case is that the accident was due to high speed of 45 miles per hour while permissible speed was 27 miles per hour. Dr. Jaidka had received several injuries. He was taken to the hospital where his injuries were examined by Dr. J.S. Panwar, P.W. 2, Medical Officer Incharge, Mahoba dispensary. X -ray of the injuries was taken by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Saxena, P.W. 6. It was found that there was fracture of left 4th and 5th ribs and right 5th, 6th and 7th ribs. There was also fracture of left humerus bone. He had also lost two front teeth. He had also sustained an injury on the root of the nose on forehead through which there was severe bleeding. According to the Plaintiff the left portion of his forehead had become sensation less and there was crushing of supra orbital and blood vessels. He remained hospitalised for about six months and could not attend to his duties for three months. He was on half pay of Rs. 200.00 and for all the six months he could not get his non -practising allowance at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month and the allowance of Primary Health Centre at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per month. He also alleged that he had suffered permanent disability and has developed fear complex and as such he would also not be able to earn that much amount which he was earning from his private practice. He also stated that he was seeking early retirement because he has lost efficiency. He was aged about 50 years at the time of the occurrence on 19.6.1966. He gave his age as 52 years at the time of his statement which was recorded on 7.9.1968, He claimed a total amount of Rs. 25.000.00 under the following heads 1. Physical pains and mental torture Rs. 2,000.002. Permanent disability caused due to injuries resulted in heavy professional loss ; Rs. 15,000.003. Loss due to early retirement Rs. 5,000.004. Loss suffered during the six months of treatment: Rs. 16,000.00 5. Expenses incurred in treatment: Rs. 14,000.00
(2.) THE suit was contested mainly on behalf of the State. The driver also filed a separate written statement. The General Manager, Transport Commissioner and Conductor of the bus were also impleaded ; but it was ultimately found that they were not at all liable. The Defendants pleaded that the bus was being driven at a slow speed, that the driver was not negligent, the accident took place because some she -buffaloes came in front of the bus all of a sudden and in order to avoid them the bus had to turn to extreme left and fell down into the Khad because the road Patri was slippery and muddy. It was denied that the Plaintiff had suffered any permanent disability or had suffered any monetary loss on account of physical pains or mental torture. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the driver, i.e. Defendant No. 4 was driving the bus negligently and at a high speed? 2. Whether the cause of accident was negligence and rash driving by Defendant No. 4? Whether the Plaintiff received injuries and suffered deformity and pain etc. as is alleged in the plaint?
(3.) WHETHER Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 can be held responsible for the negligence of Defendant No. 4?;


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