STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM BHAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Haryana defendants-appellants have filed the instant appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the concurrent findings that the department of P.W.D. (B&R), Rohtak was negligent in performance of its duty to notify the ditches in the area of village Assam, Sonepat Road, Rohtak as no warning sign board or red light was flashed. The negligence of the Department resulted into an accident on 24.3.1996 at 7.30 p.m. in the area of village Assam near a dharamkanta (weighing scale) of sugarcane. As a result, the plaintiff-respondent, who was travelling on a scooter, fell in the ditch and suffered serious head injury and other injuries on various parts of his body. The accident was witnessed by many witnesses present at the nearby dharamkanta who removed him to the PGIMR, Rohtak, where he remained admitted for treatment from 24.3.1996 to 12.6.1996. On the basis of aforementioned findings that there was a duty imposed on P.W.D. and its officials to maintain the road properly for public use by observing due care and caution, both the courts awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.

(2.) Mr. N.K. Joshi, learned State counsel has argued that the claim made by the plaintiff-respondent appears to be fictitious because the statements made by DW 1 Arvind Kumar, Sub Divisional Engineer, P.W.D., DW 2 Suresh Kumar and DW 3 Hem Chand, beldars respectively show that the road was in a good condition without any ditch and there was no complaint of any accident on the relevant date. Therefore, learned counsel argued that the findings recorded by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. Another submission made by the learned counsel is concerning the quantum of compensation. It has been submitted that the plaintiff-respondent has already been reimbursed Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 60,000 by the Department where he was working as a public servant. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 awarded as damages is on the higher side.

(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and I am of the view that both the submissions are completely devoid of any merit because it has come on record that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted in the PGIMR, Rohtak from 24.3.1996 to 12.6.1996. PW 1 Rajbir Singh has proved DDR No. 11, dated 25.3.1996, Exh. P-1 where the statement of one Ram Kishan who had brought the plaintiff-respondent in a serious injured condition to the hospital, had been recorded. Ram Kishan is an eyewitness and is in no way related to the plaintiff-respondent. He saw the scooter on which plaintiff-respondent was travelling and met with an accident due to potholes on the road. Therefore, no credence could be accorded to the statements made by the witnesses of defendants-appellants.