JOGINDRA KUER Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sardar Wazir Singh (Plaintiff) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs 12,500/- on account of loss and damages sustained by him in the following circumstances :-

(2.) The plaintiff was the owner of a motor car Hindustan 14, Registration No. BRB 456 Defendants 1 and 2 were the owners of a public carrier motor truck BRA 5610 and defendant No. 3 was the driver of that truck being an employee of the first two defendants Defendant No 4 (The Standard General Assurance Company Limited) was the insurer of the truck under Commercial Vehicle Comprehensive Policy No. CV 9650/53 On the 9th January, 1954, the plaintiff was going in his car from Gaya to Patna via Nawada and Bihar with his wife, sons and daughters and he was driving the car himself very cautiously and slowly, adhering to the traffic rules. At about 3-30 p. m. the plaintiff reached near village Mahanandpur between mile post No. 52/II and 52/III. He saw defendant No. 3 driving motor truck BRA 5610 and coming from opposite direction at a very high speed. Defendant No. 3 was driving the truck on the wrong side of the road and in spite of plaintiff's blowing his horn, the former did not take necessary precautions, with the result that there was a collision of the truck with the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff was thrown out of the car and fell down near a bridge sustaining severe Injuries. Defendant No. 3 was extremely careless and negligent while driving that truck and he was mainly responsible for the rash driving the body, chassis and other parts of the plaintiff's car were extensively damaged and the plaintiff having received grievous hurt became unconscious. He was disabled from carrying on his normal duties for a period of about five months and had to be confined to bed in hospital for a long time. The plaintiff's wife and children sustained injuries and all of them were in great agony. The oar itself became unfit for use and was lying at his house m Gaya. The plaintiff and other members of the family were taken to the hospital at Biharshariff at about 5 p. m. and later on they were removed to the Medical College Hospital at Patna the following morning. There was X'ray examination and the major portions of the plaintiff's body were plaster ed. The plaintiff was confined to bed for five months and he could not move his right leg freely even now. The car was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Patna, on the 14th January, 1954, and he found it completely smashed and beavily damaged. Another examination was by the engineer on the 29th January, 1954 who estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 5000/-. The plain-tiff incurred expenses in treatment to the tune of Rs. 4000/-, there was loss in business due to non-supervision to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was needed as compensation for the injuries sustained by him The plaintiff thus suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 29,000/-, including the cost of repairs of the motor car but on account of his inability to pay the Court-fee he gave up his entire claim of Rs 10,000/- in respect of the less in business due to non-supervision and a further sum of Rs. 6,500/- out of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of the claim for compensation regarding the injuries sustained by him He thus confined his claim only to Rs. 12,500/- A in the present suit Defendants 1 and 2 being owners of the truck were liable to compensate the plaintiff and similarly defendant No 4 as well was liable in accordance with the terms of the Insurance Policy The plaintiff gave the details of the injuries sustained by him and ether members of his family in Schedule A' of the plaint and damage to the motor car was indicated in Schedule 'B' On these, allegations he instituted the suit on the 29th November 1954.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 alleged that they were not present at the time of the accident but they had learnt from defendant No 3 that the truck was moving in normal speed on the left side of the road and it was the plaintiff who drove his car on the wrong side at a very high speed Defendant No. 3 was, no more in their employment and they did not knew his whereabouts They denied their personal liability and the extent of the damage claimed by the plaintiff They averred that the truck having been insured, the Insurance Company (defendant No 4) was liable for the damage. There was no written statement by defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 4 took up the plea that defendant No. 3 was licensed driver previously, but it was not known whether he had a licence on the date of the accident Defendants 1 and 2 had made a claim from the Insurance Company and they had alleged that the plaintiff's car was moving in a great speed and the driver of the truck was not to blame The truck in question was carrying a load of 90 to 180 mds and that being the position the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount inasmuch as the terms and conditions of the Policy had been violated. Besides that, defendant No. 3 was found to be intoxicated at the time of the accident and on that ground as well the plaintiff's claim was not maintainable. The plaintiff's claim was highly exaggerated.