UNION OF INDIA Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 3rd of May, 1967, at about 8.30 A.M., the plaintiff's truck bearing No. WGV 3514 was involved in an accident when it collided with a passenger train on the level crossing in between Binnaguri Railway Station and Dalgaon Railway Station. It is not disputed that the level crossing where the accident took place was unmanned at the relevant time. The plaintiff accuses that the defendant-Railway Administration was entirely responsible for the said accident, because it did not take any measure to man the level crossing and also at the material time, there was no whistling or other warning. It is alleged that the plaintiff acquired the vehicle in question for a considerable amount, Rs. 38,295/-. Besides, in the first year, he had to pay Rs. 2,453.90 p. as insurance charge. According to the plaintiff, recently the Railway Administration raised some structures near the level crossing, thus obstructing the views along the railway track. Also it is stated by the plaintiff, the obstruction of vision was caused by some trees too. The driver of the truck, it is said, could not see the train nor could have any idea about its approach until half of the vehicle had crossed the railway lines when the engine of the railway train coming from the north collided against the side of the truck at almost its middle with great impact. The plaintiff makes grievance that his truck has now become a scrap and has gone beyond repairs. On this allegation, the plaintiff has made a claim of Rs. 33,000/- against the Railway Administration.

(2.) The defendant, the Union of India, has denied all the material allegations of the plaintiff. It is the submission on behalf of the defendant that the accident was due to the truck driver's negligence, as there was engine whistling and alarms to stop the truck. The answering defendant has also repudiated the plaintiff's allegation that there was obstruction due to the construction of gate lodge and submits that the vehicle driver's view was quite clear even from all directions, including from Dimdima approach. The defendant has also pointed out that there was caution board with indication "Stop". Similar indication in Bengali was displayed, it is said. In short, the defence of the defendant has been that the Railway Administration was in no way responsible and there was no want of diligence on its part; on the contrary, the driver of the truck was himself absolutely reckless and negligent and thereby invited the accident.

(3.) Upon these material allegations, the parties went to trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, ten witnesses, including the plaintiff himself, were examined. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses have been examined.