BAL RAJ TULI, J. - (1.) LAL Chand Sabharwal (plaintiff-respondent) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 on account of damages on the following counts:-- 1. Rs. 10,000.00, for loss of professional practice and actual medical expenses. 2. Rs. 30,000.00 on account of permanent disability of left arm, including weakness to the left shoulder, elbow, hand, eye-sight and all mental and physical sufferings therefrom, and 3. Rs. 10,000.00 on account to illegal arrest, wrongful confinement, insulting and inhuman treatment and harassment caused to him during the course of his wrongful confinement.
(2.) THE facts pleaded were that the plaintiff was the Vice-president of Bhartiya Jan Sang, Punjab State, which started 'save Hindi agitation in the State of Punjab in May. 1957. in collaboration with some other organisations. The plaintiff offered himself for this peaceful mission and reached Chandigarh Railway Station by train at about 4 A. M. on July 15. 1957, accompanied by a batch of 250 volunteers. On arrival, he and the members of his party were out under arrest and taken to different police stations under the escort of police force under the orders of Shri A. K. Kaul. Assistant Inspector General of Police, defendant No. 2. The plaintiff and his six companions were unlawfully detained in Chandimandar Police Station in an area infested with snakes, without service of any water and meals and were meted out a most inhuman treatment. At about midnight, the plaintiff and his companions were taken from Chandimandar Police Station to an unknown destination towards Ambala City in a bus under police escort, under the orders of Shri A. C. Tuli. Magistrate 1st Class. On the wav they were forced to board police van No. PNE 4615 and the plaintiff was made to sit on the front seat and the driver was directed by Shri A. C. Tuli. Magistrate, to follow his jeep. When they reached Ambala City, the police van in which the plaintiff was travelling, turned towards Jullundur City, but the driver of the van was instructed by Shri Tuli to turn-towards Karnal side. When the van reached Shahbad following the jeep of the Magistrate, another bus carrying Shri Jagdish Narain and others also arrived and then the Magistrate directed both the vehicles to proceed towards Jullundur City. At that stage, defendant No. 3. Gian Chand. Constable, who was driving the police van, expressed his inability to perform his duties as a driver any longer on account of fatigue caused by constant duty without any rest, respite or refreshment for several hours, and requested for being relieved. His request was not accepted in spite of the plaintiffs pleadings for him and he was directed to drive the police van towards Raipura. At about 4 A. M. on July 16, 1957, the driver lost control over the vehicle which struck against a tree On one side of the road. As a consequence of that accident, (he left arm of the petitioner was crushed and fractured followed by profuse bleeding. The Punjab State and its police force escorting the van did not render any first aid to the plaintiff in spite of the request made by him and his companions and he was admitted in Rajpura Civil Hospital in a precarious condition at about 5 A. M. His condition grew so serious that be had to be removed to Rajendra Hospital. Patiala at 8. 15 A. M. The Petitioner then narrated the course of treatment and claimed the amounts as stated above. The suit was resisted by the defendants and the following issues were framed:-- 1. Did the plaintiff and other members of his party go to Chandigarh on 15th July. 1957, with a view to commit some cognizable offence ? 2. Was the plaintiff not kept in illegal confinement and unlawful detention by the defendants from 15th July, 1957, till his release ? 3. Was the plaintiff maltreated by the defendants while in their custody as alleged in para. No. 5 of the plaint and did it tantamount to infliction of mental torture on the plaintiff ? 4. Whether the accident occurred due to the gross negligence and carelessness of defendant No. 3, in driving the van carrying the plaintiff ? 5. If issue No. 4 is Droved, is defendant No. 1 not liable for the damages, if any suffered by the plaintiff on account of the accident ? 6. Did the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 bring it to the notice of Mr. Tuli, representative of defendant No. 1, that defendant No. 3 was incapable of driving for reasons stated in para. 6 of the plaint and para. No. 6 of the written statement of defendant No. 3 and still the van was ordered to be driven by Mr. Tuli for reasons given in para. No. 13 of the plaint, and if so what is its effect ? 7. Whether the accident was an act of God? 8. What injuries the plaintiff suffered on account of the said accident ? 9. To what amount of damages is the plaintiff entitled and from whom ? 10. Whether the suit is time-barred ? 11. Whether the plaintiff served a valid notice upon the defendants under Section 80, Civil procedure Code? 12. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute ? 13. Relief. The findings of the learned trial Court on the above issues were as under:-- 1. While there was no proof that the plaintiff and other members of his party went to commit a cognizable offence, the Government and its employees were justified in presuming that it was their intention. 2. Though there were some technical irregularities in the procedure, the plaintiff's interception and detention were not wholly improper in order to effectively control the situation and at least there was nothing mala fide in the mind of the officers who took those proceedings. 3. The treatment meted out of the plaintiff at the Chandimandar Police Station was not very proper when it was certain that the plaintiff was a man of high status, had not committed any offence till then and was not charged of any matter involving moral turpitude. 4. The negligence was of the employees for which the State was liable. 5. Even if the accident was due to the negligence of the driver alone, the State was certainly liable for it. 6. The driver, Gian Chand, had made a request to be relieved from his duty as driver due to fatigue, etc. , but his request was not accepted. The rejection of his request however, had no bearing on the decision of the case. 7. The accident could not be called an act of God. 8. The injuries were suffered by the plaintiff on account of the accident. 9. The plaintiff was held entitled to Rs. 10,000.00 on account of loss of professional income as a lawyer and on account of the amount spent on medicines, etc. He was also entitled to Rs. 30,000.00 on account of permanent disability of the arm and pain and suffering as a result of the accident. He was not entitled to any amount on account of his arrest and detention in Chandimandar Police Station. 10. The suit was within time under Article 22 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act and Article 2 of that Schedule did not apply. 11. A valid notice under Section 80, Civil procedure Code, had been served by the plaintiff on the defendants. 12. This issue was not argued by the learned counsel for the defendants and was thus decided against them. In the result, a decree for Rs. 40,000.00was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 and 3. The suit against Shri A. K. Kaul. Assistant Inspector General of Police (defendant No. 2) was dismissed. The State of Punjab was held liable to pay proportionate costs to the plaintiff in respect of the amount decreed in the suit and to recover the costs in respect of the amount for which it was dismissed. Against that decree the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal.
(3.) THREE points have been argued by the learned Advocate General, namely. (1) the suit was barred by time; (2) the State of Punjab was not liable because the accident, as a result of which injuries were caused to the respondent, occurred when the driver was acting in the performance of delegated sovereign functions of the State and (3) the amount of Rs. 30,000.00 awarded by wav of damages on account of permanent disability of the arm, etc. , is excessive. No other point has been argued and. therefore. I need not refer to the other points which were canvassed before the learned trial Court.;