UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT Vs. RAM MILAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the U. P. Government which was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court. It arises out of a suit for damages filed by respondent no 1 Ram Milan who was the plaintiff in the trial Court. Respondent No. 1 Mohd. Rasool and respondent No. 3 Jharkhande were the servants of defendant No. 1, the U. P. Government, and were defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the trial Court Along with the appeal we have a cross-objection filed by Ram Milan, the plaintiff THIS judgment disposes of both the first appeal filed by defendant No. 1 and the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was based on the allegation that defendant No. 1 had been carrying on motor bus service in the district of Gonda for the last several years, that on the 2nd of June, 1952 a bus belonging to defendant No. 1 left Wazirganj for Gonda at about 1.30 P. M THE plaintiff was a passenger in the upper class Defendant No. 2 Mohd Rasool was the driver of the said bus, and defendant No. 3 Jharkhande was its mechanic Owing to the negligence, misconduct and wrongful act of defendant No. 1's servants, i.e., Mohd Rasool and Jharkhande, there was an accident on the 2nd of June, 1952 which resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff on the head chin, knees and left hand THE bones of the plaintiff's left hand were also broken. He bled profusely THE plaintiff along with other injured persons was brought to the Sadar Hospital at Gonda in an unconscious condition He regained consciousness after five days THE plaintiff remained an indoor patient in the Sadar Hospital, Gonda on account of the aforesaid injuries from 2-6-1952 to 10-8-1952.

(3.) THE case set up by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statements was that defendant No. 3 was a mechanic employed in the U. P. Government Roadways and was deputed to remove the defects of bus no. 2366, that the aforesaid bus had started from Lakarmandi on 2-6-1952 for Gonda and defendant No. 3 was also coming back to Gonda by the same bus and that when the bus reached Wazirganj it again developed some trouble and did not start. THE driver, defendant No. 2, reported the matter to defendant No. 3, the mechanic, who examined the machinery and the bus and removed the defect discovered by him THEreafter, defendant No. 3 took the steering wheel in his own hands and started driving the bus in order to test and ascertain as to whether the defect in the bus was removed or not After going some distance a goat came in the way, and in his attempt to save the goat, defendant No. 3 who was driving the bus, turned it to the right side THE goat was saved, but the bus swerved to the left, went out of control and dashed against a tree. This was, therefore, a case of accident beyond their control and they are not liable for damages. Defendants Nos. 2 and 8, however, did not produce any evidence in support of the version set out on their behalf and the case proceeded ex parte against them.