UNION OF INDIA Vs. V BHIMESWARA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant-Union is the appellant. On the intervening night of July 15/16, 1973 between 2.00 and 3.00 A. M., at the level crossing between Nandyal and Panyam railway station, the driver of the railway engine without any lights or blowing horn, dashed against the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus which was proceeding to Tirupathi via Nandyal. Therein the first respondent and his son, the second respondent were sitting in seats Nos. 11 and 12 in the third row behind the driver. As a result of the accident, the first respondent crammed between the seats and he sustained extensive injuries and fractures. As a fact, he was in Kurnool General Hospital for about two and half months, underwent orthopaedic major operation and treatment. His right foot was disfigured and he became limping. He is unable to walk even till date without the support of a stick. He laid the suit for damages in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- against the Union and also the A.P.S.R.T.C. The trial Court granted a decree for Rs.40,400/- and dismissed the suit for the rest of the amount. Against the amount decreed the Union of India filed the appeal and against the interest disallowed, the respondents filed cross-objections.

(2.) The defence of the appellant is two fold- there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the engine of the passenger train and secondly that the civil suit is not maintainable. The application under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) for short, "the Act" shall be the proper forum. Therefore, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction. On framing appropriate issues and after consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court discountenanced the defence of the appellant the the driver was not negligent nor rash in driving the train at the relevant time; it also held that the respondent sustained extensive injuries as spoken to by the doctors P. Ws. 3 and 4 apart from his evidence as P. W. 1 and that he was a Public Prosecutor from 1961 to 1969 and subsequently he was the Special Public Prosecutor in several cases on behalf of the State, accordingly, he suffered extensive damages. It also held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as stated earlier.

(3.) Sri Devaraj, learned Standing Counsel for Railways has reiterated and strenuously argued in support of both the contentions. With regard to the first contention, he stated that according to the first respondent, he has lost six teeth but there is no evidence in that regard. Therefore he has not established that he has sustained any damages in the accident. The fact that the accident has occurred at the fateful intervening night of July 15/16, 1973 between 2.00 and 3.00 A.M. is not disputed. The accident also has occurred at the level crossing between Nandyal and Panyam railway station is also not disputed. The only question is whether the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The evidence is categoric that the driver has not blown the horn or any lights have been put on to the engine. Therefore, the man who was incharge of the level crossing had no notice of the engine coming; as a result, the gate was open and while the Corporation bus was proceeding at the normal speed on the level crossing, the railway engine hit the bus on the rear side. As a result, several persons sustained injuries in which the first respondent is one. Under those circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 1 corroborated by P. Ws. 3 and 4 ia categoric that the first respondent sustained extensive injuries and he was in the Government General Hospital for about two and half months and he was operated by the doctor and he was given blood transfusion, he has lost lucrative practice; as a result the grant of Rs. 40,400/- cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive.