LAWS(J&K)-1979-3-2

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

Decided On March 29, 1979
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Appellant
V/S
PUSHPA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July 29, 1966 at about 4.30 p. m. Vijay Kumar, husband of the Plaintiff, was knocked down by truck No. JKA -27, belonging to the Jammu and Kashmir Transport Department and which was being driven by Janardhan Singh, an employee of the Defendant, State of Jammu and Kashmir. As a result of the unfortunate accident, Vijay Kumar was crushed to death at the spot as both, the front and the rear wheels of the truck, ran over his body. The accident took place opposite the Head Quarters of 26 Div. Company. Janardhan Singh, after causing the accident made an attempt to run away but was caught hold of by Gurdial and Bakhshi Bhagat Singh P. Ws.

(2.) THE widow of Vijay Kumar Mrs Puspa, brought a suit for the recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000.00 as compensation for the death of her husband, who according to her was killed because of the rash and negligent act of Janardhan Singh, an employee of the Defendant State. According to averments in the plaint, deceased Vijay Kumar, at the time of the accident was working as a S.D.O. with the M.E.S. at Jammu in Grade I and was drawing a salary of Rs. 473 p. m. He was 34 years of age at the time of the accident and had a bright future ahead of him. It is further stated by the Plaintiff that the deceased was spending about Rs. 373.00 p.m. on his dependants out of his income. The Plaintiff has further stated in the plaint that though she was entitled to get Rs. 2,17,329/ - as compensation on account of damages for the death of her husband caused by the rash and negligent act of the employee of the Defendant, yet she was confiding her claim to Rs. 1,00,000.00 only. She had also served a notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure on the Defendant. She had filed the suit in forma paupris. She was declared a pauper by the court on 19 -5 -1969 and the Defendant was served on the registration of the suit.

(3.) ON a consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues: