GYARSILAL JAGANNATHPRASAD MOR Vs. PANDIT SITACHARAN DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also govern, the disposal of First Appeal No. 96 of 1960.

(2.) THESE are two appeals from a judgment of the Additional District Judge of balaghat giving to the plaintiff-respondent Pandit Sita Charan Dubey a decree for rs. 30,000/- as damages for injuries caused to him in a motor-car accident.

(3.) THE plaintiff, who on the date of the institution of the suit was about 76 years of age, has been practising as a lawyer since 1902. He became an advocate of the nagpur High Court in 1936 and practised in that Court till 1956 until the establishment of this Court at Jabalpur. He is now an advocate of this Court and an advocate of the Supreme Court also. He was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1952 to 1954. His case was that in March, 1956 he was required to go from nagpur to Baihar in Balaghat district; and that when he was doing the return journey on the morning of 1st April, 1956 in a jeep car, which had been placed at his disposal by a friend of his, he was injured in a collision between the jeep car and a Ford Touring car which was registered in the name of the defendant-appellant Gyarsilal and which was being driven by the respondent-Amersingh, an employee of Gyarsilal. The plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred when the jeep was negotiating a bend at mile 10. 3 on the Ghat section of Baihar-Balaghat road; that the jeep was being driven carefully on the correct side of the road, that is to say, close to the left of the road; that it was proceeding at a speed of about 15 miles per hour and the driver blew the horn before negotiating the bend; that at that time the car driven by Amersingh suddenly came up the hill without any warning and at a great speed; that as it was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side oi the road, it collided with the jeep car in which he was travelling; and that he was severely injured in this collision and also became unconscious. The plaintiff further stated that in this collision his right hip joint was dislocated and its socket fractured; that he received abrasions on his forehead and left knee; that the upper denture of his teeth was broken and its broken ends entered the gums and upper palate causing profuse bleeding from the mouth; and that he received severe injuries on the chest as well as on the right shoulder and the lower part of the spinal column. According to the plaintiff, one Mr. Trott of the bharvelli mines of Balaghat happened to arrive in his car at the scene of the accident soon after it occurred. Mr. Trott removed the plaintiff in his own car to balaghat hospital. He was then taken to the Medical College Hospital, Nagpur, and treated for his injuries. The plaintiff was put in plaster with both his feet suspended in the air by pullies with weights attached. He had to remain in that condition in the hospital for fourteen days. Thereafter he was removed to his son's residence who was then the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital, Nagpur. He was kept in the same condition for nearlv twelve weeks at his son's residence. As to the effect of these injuries on his physical and mental capacity, the plaintiff's allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint are : "even in July, 1956 he suffered from acute physical agony and mental shock and distress. For a number of weeks he suffered from giddiness, even while turning his head in bed. While trying to sit he suffered intense pain. His muscles have been rendered stiff and still require continuous massaging. The right leg has become thin and emaciated and is unable to support the weight of the body which compels the use of crutches even now. Owing to non-repair and infirmness of the musculature all about the hip area, he has been warned by the doctors against the risk of the recurrence of displacement and has to move about with great caution and under much pain. There has now occurred obliteration of the joint space resulting in stiffening of the hip joint and osteo artheritic changes have set in causing continuous pain and much restriction of movements. Plaintiff is practically a cripple and is likely to suffer much progressive deterioration of movements in future. His vitality and physical and mental condition have generally been lessened and expectation of life curtailed. 6. Though nearly 78 years of age the plaintiff had been leading an active life and was able to meet fully the physical and mental demands of the profession. As a result of the suffering, his vitality has been considerably reduced, digestion impaired and almost continuous pain forces him to resort to sleeping drugs. Intermittent periods of palpitation, mental lassitude and depression are preventing concentration and disabling him from taking quick decisions and generally from undertaking the normal activities of his profession. The constant pain in the hip and groin area has not yet yielded to massaging, fomentations, analgesics and diathermy. " the plaintiff claimed that the injuries which he received were due to the negligence of Amarsingh, a driver employed by Gyarsilal to drive his Ford car involved in the accident for which Gyarsilal was vicariously liable as at the time of the accident the car was being used wholly or partly for Gyarsilal's purposes and that the defendant, the Indian Mercantile Insurance Co. Ltd. , was also responsible as the Ford car had been insured at the material time with that company against third party risks.