SHAKUNTALA SHRIDHAR SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is unfortunate that this appeal from a decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963 in a running -down action is being heard ten years after it was admitted and as much as thirteen years since the date of the accident in which the deceased Shridhar Bapu Shetty lost his life.

(2.) SPECIAL Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963 has been filed by the wife and children of the deceased and is a claim under Section 1A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The learned Civil Judge raised the necessary issues, including an issue on the question of alleged negligence and the quantum of damages as claimed by the plaintiffs. He also raised the issue as to the maintainability of the suit against defendant No. 2, the Dairy Development Officer of Maharashtra State and a further issue, being issue No. 3, which is in the following words: Do plaintiffs prove that the deceased was following the rules of the road as alleged by, them? It is significant that the learned Civil Judge decided this issue in the affirmative and thereby held that so far as the deceased was concerned he was riding his bicycle and going on the left, i.e. the proper side, and was observing the rules of the road. Notwithstanding this finding, which would exclude any question of contributory negligence, the learned Civil Judge went on to hold that the plaintiffs had not proved that defendant No. 3 who was driving the jeep was; negligent when it collided with the cycle and, therefore, dismissed the suit. In this view, the learned Civil Judge did not decide the issue as to the quantum of damages.

(3.) IT is necessary to mention that the usual investigation was made by the police which resulted in the prosecution of defendant No. 3 and in fact defendant No. 3 was convicted and sentenced under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. It would appear that the State filed a revision application to the High Court for enhancement of the sentence and in those proceedings defendant No. 3 was fortuitously given the benefit of doubt and his conviction was set aside.