STATE OF M P Vs. GANPAT CHUNNILALH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Appeals Nos. 24 and 25 of 1960 arise out of two different Suits Nos. 3 and 2 of 1957 filed by two several plaintiffs Ganpat s /o Chunnilal and Ramkishan s/o Lunkaran Agrawal both of Kukshi who were injured while travelling in a bus of Madhya Bharat Roadways owned by the State of Madhya Bharat No. M. B. O. 1228 on the 10th of August 1956. This bus started from Dhar at 3 P. M. and proceeded towards Kukshi. Both the above passengers, purchased tickets of their destination and boarded the aforesaid passenger bus. The Depot Manager at Dhar as also the booking agent there and the conductor of the bus Madangir accepted for carriage a glass carboy of nitric which a passenger gold-smith by profession wanted to carry from Dhar to Kukshi. This carboy was placed in a wooden frame but was not duly packed so as not to cause any damage even if any accident were caused to the passenger bus as required by Rule 222 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. This wooden frame containing the acid carboy was loaded on the top of the bus. When the bus proceeded from Dhar towards Kukshi within seven miles from Dhar the glass carboy broke and the nitric acid, which was concentrated leaked out from the same. It trickled down from all over the top. The passengers including the aforesaid two plaintiffs began to feel uneasy because of the sensation of burning caused by the spray of trickling acid carried by the wind. When it became unbearable the passengers complained and the conductor too realised that there was something amiss with the acid carboy. The driver of the bus Dattopant was asked to stop it. He did so. The passengers rushed out of the bus. The plaintiffs who were sitting in the main portion where the majority of the passengers sit got out of the bus. They got hurt by the trickling acid both when they were seated in the bus and also when they got down from the door way, the injuries caused in the latter act being more serious. The case of the plaintiffs is that employees of the Madhya Bharat Roadways including the driver Dattopant and conductor Madangir who were responsible for accepting the acid carboy of galss in the condition of its packing as it was, were guilty of negligence and as a result of this negligence the glass carboy with the imperfect packing got broken and caused severe acid burns to them and they were required to remain in the hospital for treatment and even after they were discharged they suffered from the injuries for some time, were unable to attend to their business and also were likely to suffer in future and would be put to discomfort. The prospect of their future happiness would be reduced considerably as also the expectancy of life.

(2.) THE plaintiff Ganpat of Civil Suit Number 3 of 1957 who is the respondent in Civil First Appeal No. 24 of I960, consequently claimed Rs. 32,000 as damages, the' details whereof are as follows:- Rs. 1,500 For expenses of treatment at the King Edward Hospital at Dhar from 10-8-1956 to 11-10-1956, for travelling expenses of himself and the members of bis family from Kukshi to Dhar and bacK and for the establishment maintained by him at Dhar for his family during that period. Rs. 500 For expenses of treatment on return to Kukshi from 12-10-56 to 31-7-1357 including medical expenses. Rs. 5,000 For loss of income of trade during the period of nine months during which the plaintiff was ill. Rs. 26,0(0 For nervous shock, loss of happiness, pain and suffering present as well as future both mental and phys cal; for suffering due to sense of shame on account of permanent disfiguration; for loss of strength in the left hand due to acid burns etc. Rs. 32,000 Notice under section 80, C. P. C. was given to the defendant-State. After the reorganisation oi States as a result of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 the liability of the erstwhile State of Madhja Bharat became the liability of the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh in which the former merged. THE plaintiff therefore claimed a decree for Rs. 32,000.

(3.) THE defendants Nos. 3 and 4 i. e. the driver and conductor in their written statement denied their personal responsibility for the loss resulting from injuries caused to the plaintiffs. THEy denied that there was any breach of duty on their part involving negligence. THEy also denined the extent of damages claimed. Other contentions were almost similar. Only additional allegation made by these defendants was that the passengers had been warned not to get down.