A driver of a motor vehicle owes a duty of care to the passengers to take reasonable care to avoid injury to them during the journey.

Bishan Narain, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Punjab Government and by its employee Natha Singh from the decree of the trial Court awarding Rs. 5,557-5-6 with proportionate costs to Guran Wati for injuries caused to her on the ground that these injuries caused to her on the ground that these injuries were caused by the negligence of Natha Singh, who at the time of the accident was driving the bus of the Punjab Government as its employee.

2. This accident took place on the morning of 20-6-1952, at about 7-15 A.M., when the plaintiff was travelling in the Government bus. She boarded the bus at Lohgarh bus stand. It was going to Putli Ghar, Amritsar. Soon after leaving Lohgarh, the bus had to cross Rego bridge. To cross the bridge, the bus had to ascend and then get on the level road for 100 yards before descent. The level portion of the bridge is divided by iron railings in two equal parts. There is one way traffic on this bridge and the level portion of each part is 15 feet 11 inches. The span of a bus is 7 feet while that of a rickshaw is 3 feet or 31/2 feet. The accident took place, according to the driver, when the bus was about to cross the rickshaw. These facts are not denied.

3. The Plaintiffs case is that at the time of crossing the rickshaw the bus crashed against the railing and her right arm came between the bus and the iron railings and thus got injured. The iron railings consist of an iron wall. As a result of this impact the Radius and Ulna bones of her arm in the upper one-third portion were fractured. There was a fracture at the lower end of the Ulna also. The right Ulna was found to be bruised and swollen. The plaintiff states that her middle fingers of the injured arm were also involved in the accident. She remained in V. J. Hospital, Amritsar, from 20-6-1952 till 19-7-1952. After discharge from the hospital, she continued the treatment at home. As a result of this treatment two of these fractures have united but not the one on the upper part of the Ulna. The learned Advocate-General did not challenge the plaintiffs case relating to the extent of her injuries and the result of the treatment and, therefore, these may be taken as established.

4. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 on the ground that these injuries were caused by negligent driving of Natha Singh. The defendants denied the drivers negligence and further pleaded that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The trial Court held that the driver was negligent and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. It then allowed Rs. 1,557-5-6 as expenses incurred by the plaintiff for medical treatment and award Rs. 4,000.00 on account of the mental shock and bodily pain borne by her. The Government has appealed for dismissal of the suit while the plaintiff has filed cross-objections for increase of the amount for mental shock etc., from Rs. 4,000.00 to Rs. 6,000.00 .

5. The learned Advocate-General urged three points before us:

(i) the driver of the omnibus was not negligent,

(ii) the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and

(iii) compensation decreed is excessive.

6. I take up the question of drivers negligence first. The accident took place at about 7-15 in the morning of the 20th June when there was very little traffic on the bridge. The road is 15 feet 11 inches wide and there is only one way traffic on it. Therefore, there was no traffic coming from the opposite side. Sohan Singh D.W. 3, who drives buses on this road, has stated, and rightly stated, that the road is wide enough there to enable a bus to cross a cycle-rickshaw. The accident took place on the level road at its extreme right. The trial Judge on inspection of the spot found that a bus when nearest to the dividing wall must leave a space of 4 to 5 inches between itself and the wall. The plaintiff received injuries because her right arm was caught between the bus and the wall. The driver states that the accident t