STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. UDECHAND RAMCHANDRA LUNIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent, Udechand Ramchandra Luniya (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), filed Special Civil Suit No. 49 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara for compensation of Rs. 51,600. 76 ps. on account of a motor car accident in which he was involved at the hands of the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the second defendant") who was driving the motor car belonging to the appellant (hereinafter referred as "the first defendant") i. e. State of Maharashtra. It was the case of the plaintiff that on October 9,1975 at about 4. 00 p. m. while he was proceeding on a bicycle by the extreme left side of the Satara-Koregaon road towards village Mahuli, the ambassador car driven by the second defendant gave him a forcible dash on account of which he fell down and received serious injuries to his right leg, on his head and he also sustained some minor injuries on the other parts of his body. The plaintiff further contended that he was dragged by the said vehicle for a distance of about 15 to 20 feet and he had become unconscious. He was removed to Civil Hospital, Satara where he regained consciousness on the next day and on the advice of Dr. Gondhalekar of the Civil Hospital he was taken to Pune for further treatment where he was admitted as an indoor patient in the Charitable hospital of Dr. Motwani. He also contended that on account of the fracture to his right leg, he was required to go to Pune every month for treatment and check up and had thus gone to Pune on six occasions. His case was that due to the injuries received by him in the accident he had permanently become disable and was prevented from performing his normal duties by moving about on a bicycle and collecting dues from various cloth merchants of Satara. According to him, his monthly income was Rs. 200. 00 to Rs. 250. 00. He claimed special damages of Rs. 10,100. 76 ps. and Rs. 1,500/- as fees of the doctor. He also claimed general damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ -.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the first defendant. State of Maharashtra, on the ground that it was not true that the plaintiff was slowly going by the left side of the road on his bicycle and that the second defendant was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. The first defendant denied the income of the plaintiff being Rs. 250/- per month and also that the plaintiff was required to go to Pune six times for medical treatment. It was denied by the first defendant that the second defendant was on duty at the time of the accident.

(3.) THE second defendant who was the driver of the vehicle resisted the claim of the plaintiff contending that he was not responsible for the accident. He contended that he was not driving the car rashly and negligently and on the contrary he was quite careful in driving the car at the time of the accident. According to him, it was the plaintiff who was bicycling rashly and negligently and was responsible for the accident.