STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. VINOD KUMAR BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Mirzapur d/- March 23, 1967.

(2.) On June 15, 1962 the plaintiffs Vinod Kumar and Har Har Prasad were passengers on Bus U. P. C. 5246 belonging to the State Government under the Transport Department and had boarded the same at Varanasi for Churk. The Bus left Varanasi at 7.30 A. M. one hour behind the schedule on its way to Churk via Mirzapur. It passed by Chunar situate nearly 28 miles from Varanasi and reached the culvert situate about two miles west of Chunar. Truck No. USM 1004 held on hire purchase agreement by Mela Ram defendant came to the culvert from the opposite direction carrying lime on its way to Varanasi from Mirzapur. It was around 8.30/8.45 A. M. Vinod Kumar had his seat in the upper class by the side by the window towards the right. Hari Har Prasad the other plaintiff was seated behind him in the lower class with the window immediately to his right. Both the Bus and the truck abovementioned tried to negotiate and pass through the culvert at the same time. In the result, the vehicles grazed with each other both on their right sides and in the process Hari Har Prasad sustained fracture on the right elbow while the right arm of Vinod Kumar was altogether amputated leaving merely a stump measuring 8-1/2" behind. Portion of the Bus was also damaged. The truck proceeded ahead and could be caught hold of at Chunar. Both the injured were admitted as indoor patients in the District Hospital, Mirzapur where they received treatment. First information report was also lodged. After some time the plaintiffs were referred to the Medical College, Kanpur for further treatment. Hari Har Prasad instituted original suit No. 18 of 1964 claiming a sum of Rs. 39,200/-as damages jointly and severally against the State, Mela Ram. Panna Lal (the Driver of the Truck) and the British India General Insurance Company Ltd. Original Suit No. 19 of 1964 was brought by Vinod Kumar against these persons claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages--both general and special.

(3.) In defence it was contended for the State that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Driver of the Truck and that there was no liability upon the State since there was no negligence on the part of the Driver of the Bus. It was pleaded also that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence. Mela Ram and Panna Lal defendants pleaded in defence on the other hand that the injury to the plaintiffs resulted due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the roadways Bus and that in any case the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence. For the Insurance Company it was denied that there is liability arising against it.