- (1.) THE suit for recovery of compensation, giving rise to this appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff against the Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. and others on the allegation that the plaintiff was knocked down and run over by a Tram Car whose wheel pierced through and separated his right leg thereby permanently disabling him for life.
(2.) THE learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff was involved in some sort of accident, was admitted to the hospital, lost his right leg which has disabled him and has incapacitated him from earning livelihood by puting in hard manual labour, had to spend about Rs. 563. 5/-for his trimmest and that his claim for compensation for Rs. 48,000/-is otherwise reasonable. The learned Judge has observed thus " I believe the evidence given by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was admitted in S. S. K. M. Hospital on 7. 5. 75 and has spent rs. 5635/- for his treatment. I also believe the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff has been disabled because of loss of leg and it is not possible for him to earn his livelihood by hard manual labour. The compensation of Rs. 48,000/- claimed by the plaintiff does not also seem to me to be unreasonable". The defendants have not filed any cross-objection against, any of these findings and Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, who has argued the case with exemplary fairness, has not seriously assailed them in his submissions before us. These findings of the learned Judge, therefore, would stand confirmed. The learned judge has, however, dismissed that suit as, according to him, it has not been proved that any Tram Car of the defendants caused the injuries to the plaintiff and/or that there was any negligence on behalf of the defendants or their servants. The learned Judge has also been inclined to think that there was also contributory negligence on the side of the plaintiff.
(3.) WE are, however, of opinion that there can be no satisfactory reason to disbelieve the plaintiff's case that he was knocked down and run over by a Tram Car of Route No. 35 - Esplanade Behala Route -belonging to the defendants. Apart from the clear evidence of the plaintiff, figuring as PW-6, to the effect that he was knocked down and run over by a Tram Car, the categorical evidence of Nanda Kishor Pathak, pw-1, a resident of the locality and a witness to the occurrence, is to the following effect : - " I saw a boy being knocked down by a tram car of route no. 35 which was going, towards Behala. . . . I saw the boy standing on the foot path. Thereafter he tried to cross the road. The tram car was standing at a distance of 100 feet from the tram stop. The car had also stopped at the stop. Thereafter it knocked the boy, 1 did not hear the car ringing bell before the accident usually people crossed the road at the spot where the accident occured. After knocking down the boy, the tram did not wait. I along with another man took the injured boy to the p. G. Hospital. . . . . . (xxm ). . . . . The boy locked both sides before crossing the road. Shyamal Biswas accompanied me to the hospital". ;