KANTILAL Vs. RAMNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1968, passed by the joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 101 of 1955, to the extent the same went against the plaintiff-appellant herein.

(2.) The original action was one instituted in torts by the plaintiff for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 12,594/- as per particulars in paragraph seven of the plaint. The circumstances under which the said action came to be instituted were as follows :

(3.) At the relevant time the plaintiff was working as an agent of the Eastern Mining Contractors Private Limited and was posted at Munsar Manganese Mine at Munsar in Nagpur district. He was then drawing a salary of Rs. 403/- per month. As an employee, he was provided by the Company with a motor cycle bearing No. B.Y.J. 9439. On the after-noon of 22nd May, 1965 at about 3 p.m. the plaintiff had gone on his motor cycle to Village Kandri, a distance of about three miles from Munsar Mine. One Dinkar Ganpat Maratha was seated on the pillion of the motor cycle. The plaintiff had gone to meet one Nathusao for negotiating with him regarding lime required for the mine. On their way return after meeting Nathusao, plaintiff and Dinkar halted at the shop of one Manibhai for drinking water and then further commenced their return journey. While plaintiff and Dinkar on the motor cycle in question came on the main P.W.D. Jabalpur-Nagpur road, a motor truck bearing no. B.Y.Y. 2491 fully loaded with heavy logs of wood and driven by defendant No. 2 was seen coming from Jabalpur direction to Nagpur direction i.e. north-south. The plaintiff, therefore, did not cross-over to the left side of the road but remained on the right side of the road and proceeded along the right side so as to enable the truck to pass over. The said truck was, however, driven rashly and negligently by defendant No. 2 and it suddenly came on the plaintiff's motor cycle without blowing any horn and without giving any warning and dashed against the motor cycle from behind, as a result whereof the motor cycle as also the plaintiff and Dinkar were thrown away.