MUNISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Munish Kumar, is a partner of the firm Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Pathankot. In connection with the business, the plaintiff was actively travelling in various parts of the States of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. On 18.9.1988 at about 5 p.m. the plaintiff accompanied by one Ravinder Kumar, was going from village Badoh to Garoh falling in Tehsil Nurpur of District Kangra on motor cycle No. PAH 3340. Plaintiff was driving the motor cycle while the above named Ravinder Kumar was the pillion rider. A small bridge of four spans near Bassa Wazira falls on the way from Garoh to Badoh. This bridge is known as Garali Khad Bridge. The bridge was incomplete at the relevant time. The approach to the bridge is at an incline and there is a sharp curve before the bridge. As such the complete length of the bridge was not visible. No indication or sign was displayed to the effect that the bridge was incomplete, nor there were any blockades or danger signs placed. The impression which one got was that the bridge was in a normal condition and it was safe to pass through the same. While the plaintiff was driving through the bridge, his motor cycle fell down 20/30 feet below into the khad which was full of boulders and rocks. The plaintiff and his pillion rider sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were of a serious nature, including the spinal injury which resulted in paraplegia. The plaintiff has been rendered a cripple. There is 100 per cent permanent disablement and the plaintiff is absolutely bedridden unable to perform even the bare essential physical functions. He cannot even answer the call of nature of his own and has to depend upon the attendants.

(2.) The plaintiff has accordingly filed the present suit for damages claiming Rs. 12,00,000, alleging that the defendants are liable for such damages in tort.

(3.) The defendants, while resisting the suit, admitted that they owe a duty to the general public to see that roads, bridges and pathways are properly maintained and that no danger or harm ensues from the lawful use of such roads, bridges and pathways by the general public. It was pleaded that due to heavy rains in the year 1984, the bridge in question was damaged on 7.8.84 as a result, the same was closed for vehicular and other traffic. In order to facilitate traffic, a diversion through the khad was provided from both sides of the bridge. Signboards were affixed indicating that the bridge in question was damaged. The road leading to the bridge was closed by placing boulders and other materials. The work of diversification was started in May, 1985 and was completed within two-three months. The traffic thus started moving through this diversion. The bridge could not be repaired/completed till 1988. All care was taken by the defendants and their functionaries to forewarn the public in general not to make use of the bridge in question as the same was damaged and a portion thereof had been washed away. The defendants denied the accident as well as the injuries having been sustained by the plaintiff in such accident. They also denied their tortious liability.