UNION OF INDIA Vs. VED PARKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff - - respondent for recovery of Rs. 8,24,000 alongwith simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as damages/compensation on account of multiple injuries received by him because of gross negligence of the employees of the appellants. The cross -objections have been filed by the plaintiff -respondent for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages/compensation on account of multiple injuries received by him on 28th January, 1991, with the averments that the Hissar Railway Station divides the main city into two parts and there is no over -bridge linking two parts of the city. However, the Railways was allowing frequent pedestrian traffic to pass over through both the sides of the city through the two gates. The outlets provided on the two gates are not manned at any time. On 28th January, 1991 at about 7 p.m. the plaintiff was coming from Camp side and was going to his home which fell on the other side of the city. There was shunting of goods train and the engine was towards western side of the railway station whereas rear bogies were there and were shunting in the reverse direction without any light, unmanned and without any indication. There was no shunting man along with the train, regarding the shunting which was mandatory. The shunting was on the broad -gauge line. Neither the engine gave any whistle nor there was any warning from any quarters. There was no light at that time. The bogies hit the plaintiff, who fell on the railway line and sustained serious multiple injuries which were grievous in nature thereby resulting into amputation of his limbs besides other multiple fractures on his body. The accident was reported to the Railway Police immediately. He was medically examined in Govt. Hospital, Hissar, and was advised to be shifted to PGI, Chandigarh where he remained for more than two years and was still under the treatment of various doctors and specialists. Thus, the plaintiff who had suffered multiple injuries sought to recover a sum of Rs. 16,04,896 by way of damages as detailed in the suit on account of the aforesaid accident by filing the present suit. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff also gave a statutory notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendants who did not respond to the same. Since the suit by the plaintiff was filed as an indigent person, the trial Court, - -vide its order dated 24th April, 1998 allowed the plaintiff -respondent to file the suit as an indigent person.

(3.) REPLICATION on behalf of the plaintiff was also filed in which the plaintiff denied the averments of the written statement and reiterated his stand taken in plaint.