STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURANWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Punjab Government and by its employee Natha Singh from the decree of the trial Court awarding Rs. 5,557-5-6 with proportionate costs to Guran Wati for injuries caused to her on the ground that these injuries caused to her on the ground that these injuries were caused by the negligence of Natha Singh, who at the time of the accident was driving the bus of the Punjab Government as its employee.

(2.) THIS accident took place on the morning of 20-6-1952, at about 7-15 A. M. , when the plaintiff was travelling in the Government bus. She boarded the bus at Lohgarh bus stand. It was going to Putli Ghar, Amritsar. Soon after leaving Lohgarh, the bus had to cross Rego bridge. To cross the bridge, the bus had to ascend and then get on the level road for 100 yards before descent. The level portion of the bridge is divided by iron railings in two equal parts. There is one way traffic on this bridge and the level portion of each part is 15 feet 11 inches. The span of a bus is 7 feet while that of a rickshaw is 3 feet or 31/2 feet. The accident took place, according to the driver, when the bus was about to cross the rickshaw. These facts are not denied.

(3.) THE Plaintiff's case is that at the time of crossing the rickshaw the bus crashed against the railing and her right arm came between the bus and the iron railings and thus got injured. The iron railings consist of an iron wall. As a result of this impact the Radius and Ulna bones of her arm in the upper one-third portion were fractured. There was a fracture at the lower end of the ulna also. The right Ulna was found to be bruised and swollen. The plaintiff states that her middle fingers of the injured arm were also involved in the accident. She remained in V. J. Hospital, Amritsar, from 20-6-1952 till 19-7-1952. After discharge from the hospital, she continued the treatment at home. As a result of this treatment two of these fractures have united but not the one on the upper part of the Ulna. The learned Advocate-General did not challenge the plaintiff's case relating to the extent of her injuries and the result of the treatment and, therefore, these may be taken as established.