SUSHMA MITRA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor accident.

(2.) THE facts that the plaintiff alleged were that on June 12, 1959 she was going in bus No. MPJ 1690 -- belonging to the Madhva Pradesh State Road Transport corporation, from Jabalour to Chhindwara. A truck bearing No. MPJ 9310 owned by Bakhatwarsingh, defendant No. 2. was Coming from the opposite direction-There was a head-on collision between the two vehicles at a distance of about seven miles from Jabalpur. As a result of this impact, the plaintiff received severe injuries to her right elbow causing multiple fractures. It was further pleaded that the injuries have resulted in a permanent disability of the right hand. Both the drivers, according to the case of the plaintiff, were driving the respective vehicles in utter disregard of the rules of driving and without any regard to the safety of passengers. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rupees 73. 238. 80 as damages against the defendants. The first defendant in the suit is the Madhva Pradesh State Road transport Corporation which is the owner of the bus. The second defendant is bakhatwarsingh who is the owner of the truck. The third defendant Dhaniram was at the relevant time driver of the truck. The fourth defendant is Indian Insurance pools Companies Association which is the insurer of the bus and the fifth defendant is the Northern India Motor Owners Insurance Co. which is the insurer of the truck.

(3.) THE defendants 2 and 3, the owner and the driver of the truck, remained ex parte. The fifth defendant, the Northern India Motor Owners Insurance Co. , Which is the insurer of the truck, pleaded that the Plaintiff projected her right elbow outside the bus in which she was travelling and sustained the injuries on account of her own fault knowing well that a vehicle was coming from opposite direction. It was further pleaded that the bus in which she was travelling occupied a major portion of the road keeping more to the right than to the left. The defendant No.