MINOR RAMPEARY Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit giving rise to this appeal was for recovery of Rs. 602/ - from the defendants as damages for causing injuries on the person of plaintiff No. 1, a minor girl of about 9 years, while she was passing by a road on its left side along with her mother. It appears, as found by both the courts below, that at that time defendant No. 1 was coming on a cycle from the opposite direction and defendant No. 2 was with him sitting on the rod of the cycle. The allegation made against the defendants is that defendant No. 1, suddenly turned his cycle on the wrong side, that is to say, on his right and collided with the girl with the result that she was badly knocked down and had compound fractures in two of her bones in the right leg with other bleeding injuries. The complaint made in the plaint is that the collision was due to the negligence on the part of the defendants, and therefore, they are in law liable for the damages as claimed. The defendants in their written statement denied their presence on the road at the time of the collision and pleaded that the allegations made them were all false.

(2.) The trial Court on discussion of the entire evidence and other materials on the record came to the conclusion that this collision was due to the rash and negligent driving of the cycle by defendant No. 1. Accordingly, it decreed the suit but only for a sum of Rs. 567/-. In appeal the finding on the question of negligence has been reversed. The lower appellate Court has held that

(3.) In a case like this, although the injury is direct and forceful and as such prima facie a case of trespass to the person, still the plaintiff has to prove negligence in order to succeed, for the principle that a man cannot recover damages if he has consented to run the risk of accidental harm is clearly applicable to cases arising out of accidents on a road. In Holmes v. Mather, (1875) 10 Ex 261 Bramwell B, in applying the rule of consent to case of accident on a road observed :