CHINTAMAN SADASHIV DESHPANDE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-original plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and damages on account of accident. His case was that he was travelling from Yeotmal of Pusad by S.T. Bus MHD-484, owned by the respondent No. 1 the original defendant No. 1 on 6-6-1971. This Bus started from Yeotmal at about 12,30 P.M. and was nearing Pusad. A mile or so before Pusad it had to cross a truck on the road being Truck No. BYY-7637 owned by the respondent No. 3 original defendant No. 3. The S.T. Bus was being driven by respondent No. 2, the original defendant No. 2, who was then in employment of the defendant No. 1. The truck was being driven by the respondent No. 4, the original defendant No. 4. The plaintiff was sitting in the bus. While the S.T. Bus was bypassing the truck, the driver of the Bus was so rash and negligent that he drove the bus close to the truck with the result that the hook of the truck entered the left hand of the plaintiff which was completely inside the bus and came out causing several injuries including multiple fractures in the left hand of the plaintiff. His injuries were profusely bleeding and he became unconscious. He was taken to Yeotmal for medical aid and then to Medical College at Nagpur and at Nagpur he was treated by Dr. Marwha. Various operations had to be performed. Two steel plates had to be inserted in his left hand. A. bone had to be planted and his bone was taken from abdomen of the plaintiff. He stayed at Nagpur for treatment from 8-6-1971 to 21-11-1971 as an indoor patient in the hospital and spend for lodging and boarding including special diet. He had to keep attendants. He had to spend for operations performed and for medicines and was not recovered even on the date of filing of the suit on 7-6-1972. He is an employee in the State Bank getting salary of Rs. 725/- P.M. He submitted that due to rashness and gross negligence of the defendant No. 2 while in employment of the defendant No. 1 he had to suffer physically, mentally and financially and hence the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are both liable for compensation and damages jointly and severally as detailed in Paras 5A and B of the plaint. He also claimed that the defendants 3 and 4 are also jointly and severally liable to make good the loss alongwith defendants 1 and 2 since the defendant No. 4 was also rash and negligent and did not take proper and reasonable care in giving clear passage to the Bus. He, therefore, filed this suit after serving with information about the accident to the Divisional Controller, State Transport, Amraoti and preferring claims about damages.

(2.) THE defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement and submitted that the accident was unforeseen and sudden. They admitted that the plaintiff suffered and sustained injuries in a collision between the truck and the S.T. Bus. They submitted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the defendant No. 4. The truck was facing towards Pusad and while it was being crossed over by the defendant No. 2 the truck driver i.e. defendant No. 4 without giving any signal or indication took the truck all of a sudden on the reverse. The S.T. driver in an attempt to avoid collision tried to cross over the truck by taking vehicle towards right with all that the extreme end of the bus came in contact with the rear portion of the truck as a result thereof the left hand of the plaintiff received injuries. They contended that the plaintiff had projected his hand from the window and as such is responsible due to his own contributory negligence. According to these defendants, the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by defendant No.4. They denied plaintiff's claim in toto and submitted that they are not responsible for the mishap.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed the necessary issues from the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff examined himself as PW 1, one Vasant Chintaman, his relative as PW 2, Dattatraya as PW 3 and Manik as PW 4. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 examined Yadao as DW 1 and Abdul son of Rahaman as DW 2. Defendants 3 and 4 examined Iswarprasad as witness No. 1, one Wamanrao as witness No. 2, Vithal as witness No. 3, Jugalkishore as witness 4 and Syed Karim as witness No. 5. Plaintiff also examined Dr. Marwha on commission.