JAGAN NATH GOEL Vs. MC SANGRUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, RSA No.3233 of 2007 titled Jagan Nath Goel (since deceased) through LRs Vs. MC Sangrur and RSA No.2483 of 2007 titled MC Sangrur Vs. Jagan Nath Goel (since deceased) through LRs are being decided. Facts are being noticed from RSA No.3233 of 2007.

(2.) Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for damages and other litigation expenses on account of receiving injuries due to negligence of the defendant. Plaintiff/appellant pleaded that on 30/5/1997 at about 7:30 PM when he was coming back to his house from the market and reached near the gate of Ranbir Club, Sangrur, he fell into the ditch from his bicycle and received fractures in his left ankle in two places and from both sides. Appellant is an Advocate. In the morning at about 9:00 A.M., he went to the Court through the same road and the road was absolutely fine as there was no ditch on the road. The ditch came to be in existence only during day hours after 9:00 AM. At the time of occurrence, there was quite dark and there was no street light in operation, therefore, the ditch could not be seen by the plaintiff. The suit for damages was filed on the ground that it was the duty of the defendant to maintain the moterable road for the public and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were the direct result of in- action on the part of the defendant in not removing the ditch which was about two feet wide and was spread all over the road widthwise and bricks were scattered around the ditch. There was no sign board displayed at the place for the purposes of giving warning to passer-byes. The occurrence took place due to negligence of the defendant and the suit was filed to make the defendant liable for tortuous negligent act. The plaintiff had to undergo treatment for the injuries. Plaintiff had to undergo rigorous sufferings as he was already the patient of kidney transplantion. Doctors expressed their inability to help him due to the aforesaid ailment. Plaintiff remained admitted in Kakkar Hospital for 10 days. He got treatment for his fracture ankle and remained confined to bed for more than 2 months. He was operated for his ankle treatment and two screws were fixed in the ankle and thereafter, remained confined to bed for further three months. During the period of confinement, the plaintiff could not work as an Advocate and became disabled to the extent of 15%. The expenses incurred by the plaintiff were borne by his younger brother. Plaintiff suffered physical, mental and monetary sufferings due to negligent act of the defendant. Plaintiff claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.8,41,000.00 under different heads.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit on the premise that there was no ditch dug out by the defendant on 30/5/1997. The allegations made by the plaintiff were denied tooth and nail on account of it being not been existed in front of gate of Ranbir Club. No other person had ever made any complaint regarding pit/ditch on the road. Defendant further resisted the claim on the ground that on 30/5/1997, there was no repair work done by the defendant on the road as claimed by the plaintiff, therefore, there was no question of displaying any sign board or making any fencing around the alleged pit. There was no fault on the part of the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any damages against the defendant.