VIDYAWATI Vs. LOKUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages arising out of an alleged tort. It is directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Udalpur, dated 14-4-1954. The appellant No. 1 Mt. Vidyawati is widow of one Jagdishlal Kayasth, while appellant No. 2 Mt. Girjawati is her minor daughter. The deceased Jagdishial was resident of Udaipur and working as a teacher. The respondent No. 1 Lokumal was a motor driver in the employment of the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE appellants' case was that on 11-2-1951 at about 4 p. m. , Jagdishlal was going on duty in connection with Census work and he wes wallong on the footpath by the side of a public road leading from Hathi Pole to Delhi Gate in Udaipur City. At that time, respondent No. 1, who was driving a jeep car No. RUM 49 belonging to the State of Rajasthan suddenly came from behind; he was rash and negligent in driving that jeep on the footpath whereby he knocked down Jagdishial, causing him multiple injuries, including fracture of the skull and backbone. Jagdishial was immediately removed to the Hospital and treated there, but he could not regain consciousness which he had lost immediately after the occurrence and ultimately he died on 14-2-1951. on account of the said injuries. THE plaintiffs, therefore, claimed Rs. 25,000/- as damages from Lokumal and the State of Rajasthan. 2-a. Both the respondent contested the suit in the trial court on several grounds on account of which as many as 10 issues were framed. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the trial court found that jeep car No. RUM 49 belonged to the State and it was being used by the Collector, Udaipur. Respondent No. 1 Lokumal was a driver in the employ of the State. He had taken the said vehicle to Royal Auto Engineers Shop for repairs. He got it back at about4 P. M. He and one Noor Mohammad were sitting therein and they were going from Hathipol to Delhi Dar-waja. A bus was going in front of this vehicle. THE respondent wanted to overtake it. THE driver of the bus had given way to respondent No. 1 but at the place where respondent No. 1 wanted to cross the bus. there was not enough space and so this driver took the jeep on the footpath and knocked clown Jagdishial. It has passed a decree for Rs. 15,000/- against respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellants. THE suit against the State of Rajasthan has, however, been dismissed. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal had been filed.

(3.) THE next case cited by him is Secretary of State v. Ramnath Bhatta, AIR 1934 Cal 128 (E ). In that case, the Deputy Collector had paid the monev to a wrong person in exercise of his statutory duties and so it was held that the Secretary of State for India was not liable for a wrongful act of an officer, which was done in performance of his statutory duties. It would be enough to say that the driver in the present case was not performing any statutory duties. He was doing the same job which a driver of a private employer would be doing and, therefore, these two cases are also of no avail in the circumstances of the present case.