DR R P GHOSH Vs. BENGAL AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the appellant for the recovery of damages on account of injuries said to have been sustained by him in a fall on the platform at the Laheria Sarai railway station.

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that on 16 January 1939 he went to the Laheria Sarai station to catch a train for Samastipur at 4-21 P.M. and as he was proceeding to board the train, his left foot "suddenly fell into a ditch" as a result of which he sustained a serious sprain which incapacitated him from pursuing his professional duties for over two weeks. He also alleged that the fall with the consequent injury to himself was directly caused by the negligence of the defendant railway company in not maintaining the platform in proper and fit condition and that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2000 as damages. The defendant railway company in resisting the suit contended firstly that there was no ditch on the platform and that the platform was in perfectly good order it being always kept in good order under the supervision of the engineering department; and, secondly, that the plaintiff did not fall on account of any ditch on the platform, but he had sustained his fall as he was, on account of his late arrival at the station, in a hurry to catch the train and that the injury which he had sustained was due to his own carelessness and negligence. The Munsif who tried the suit awarded a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1075. The learned Additional District Judge has however reversed the decision of the Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding in the first place that on the facts of the case the defendant railway company should be absolved from the charge of negligence and, secondly, that this was a case in which the plaintiff's own negligence was the real, direct, and effective cause of the accident.

(3.) There can be no dispute with regard to those facts which have been concurrently found by the two Courts below. It has been found in the first place that there was a depression at a distance of only about one cubit from the edge of the verandah outside the booking-office and that this depression was as stated by the plaintiff about 3 inches deep within a diameter of 18 inches. Then again the defendant railway company had offered evidence to show that there had been a complete repair of the platform before the alleged accident, but both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the case put forward by the railway company is not correct and the depression described by the plaintiff did exist. The Courts have also found that the plaintiff sustained the injury at the time of stepping down from the varandah on to the platform by reason of his left foot getting into the depression. The question which has to be considered by this, Court is whether the findings arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge as to there having been no negligence on the part of the defendant railway company and the accident being the direct result of the plaintiff's own negligence, which have the appearance of findings of fact, can be disturbed in a second appeal. In coming to the finding that the defendant company should be absolved from the charge of negligence the learned Additional District Judge observed as follows: It seems to me that they (the railway company) would be discharging their duty satisfactorily by maintaining their platform in a condition which conforms with the ordinarily accepted standards on highways and by ways frequented by the public.