MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SRIGANGANAGAR Vs. SHRIDHAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 21. 8. 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Civil Suit No. 102/1985, whereby, the suit preferred by the plaintiff Dr. Shridhar Sharma (respondent in appeal no. 119/1989 and appellant in appeal no. 141/1989 herein) for compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000/-, has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 7,500/- against the defendant Municipal Council, Sriganganagar (appellant in appeal no. 119/1989 and respondent in Appeal No. 141/1989 herein ). The plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree to the extent its claim for compensation has been disallowed and so also by award of the interest @ 6% from the date of the filing of the suit till the recovery of the amount, instead of 10% claimed by him. The defendant has preferred the appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court whereby, the decree for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- has been passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the defendant Municipal Council has constructed a small bridge over a 'nala' near the shop of Suganchand Halwai at Sriganganagar. On 28th July, 1982 at about 8 p. m. the plaintiff, a Lecturer in Biology in Government College, Sriganganagar while passing through the said bridge on scooter met with an accident. It is alleged by the plaintiff that there was no sufficient arrangement for the light and therefore, while passing through the said bridge, he could not see the ditch near the chamber of the bridge and consequently, he could not keep the balance of the scooter and fell down on the road resulting in fracture in the bone of his right hand. It was alleged that on account of the fracture, his right hand was plastered for a period of two months. It was further alleged that the plaintiff suffered physical and mental agony as a result of the injuries sustained. He was deprived from performing his daily work. It was alleged that it was only on account of gross negligence on the part of the local authority and its failure to discharge its duties for maintaining the road in proper condition and insufficiency of the light, the accident occurred. THE plaintiff claimed compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000/- from the defendants. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff served the defendant Municipal Council, Sriganganagar so also the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sriganganagar raising demand for the compensation. THE Market Committee was impleaded as party defendant in the suit for the reason that the road on which accident occurred falls within the Market Committee area. THE amount of compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000/- was claimed by the plaintiff out of which Rs. 7,500/-were claimed as general damages and Rs. 7,500/- for the loss of pleasure.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsels for the parties to the suit and due consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court arrived at the finding that the plaintiff had met with an accident as pleaded due to negligence on the part of the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar in maintaining the road and insufficiency of the light at the place of occurrence. However, the learned Trial court found the plaintiff entitled for compensation quantified to Rs. 7500/ -. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the plaintiff has been decreed as indicated above.