M.N. SHUKLA, J. :- These are three connected appeals by the plaintiffs from the judgement and decree of the 1st Additional Civil Judge. A era, in the three suits for damages founded on tort The suits were consolidated and decided by a common judgement and hence the appeals may also be disposed of by one judgement. All the suits were dismissed with costs and hence these appeals were preferred. However, the appellant Dr. C.S. Patel in First Appeal No. 434 of 1958 arising out of suit No. 223 of 1955 is dead and hence that appeal has become in-fructuous and is dismissed. We are now left with First Appeals Nos. 429 and 430 of 1968 arising out of Suits Nos. 222 and 224 of 1955 respectively. The defendant in the three suits was the same, namely, the Cantonment Board, Agra.

2. Dr. C.B. Singh instituted suit No. 222 of 1955. He was at that time a Professor and Head of the Department of Surgery in the Medical College. Agra and a renowned Surgeon, having an extensive practice. Dr. R.V. Singh instituted suit No. 224 of 1955. He was at that time a Professor of Clinical Surgery at the Lucknow Medical College. The allegations In the two plaints were almost identical. They were that at about 10 on 10-4-1955 Dr. C.B. Singh along with Dr. C.S. Patel and Dr. B.V. Singh and Miss Patel, niece of Dr. C.S. Patel. were going to see the Taj in the car owned and driven by Dr. C.B. Singh. Dr. C.B. Singh was driving the car with his usual care and at a very moderate speed of about 15 miles per hour. The car suddenly collided with a traffic island at the crossing of the Mall and Metcalf Road (now known as General Cariappa Road). The said traffic island was wrongly and negligently built by the defendant Board at a very inconvenient spot in or about the middle of the Mall Road. There were no overhead lights on the traffic island nor any other light near it. It was not equipped with ruby lights so as to make it noticeable for vehicles using the road at night The defendant Board was charged with the duties of lighting the streets and other public places, maintaining streets and roads and removing for purposes of public safety undesirable obstructions in streets and roads and keeping them safe for vehicular traffic. As a result of the collision the occupants of the car including the three plaintiffs, suffered injuries which gave severe physical pain and great mental shock to them. There was a permanent impairment of certain organs of the body which had affected their earning capacities for life and resulted in loss of income due to inability to do professional work. Dr. C.B. Singh and Dr. V.R. Singh claimed Rs. 30,000/- each as damages and compensation as a result of this gross negligence, misfeasance and malfeasance.

3. The defence of the Cantonment Board, inter alia, was that the occurrence took place on 10-4-1955 which was the Teej day (3rd day after the full moon) and at 10 p.m. It was not dark and the moon was full and bright that the alleged incident was due to the gross negligence of the plaintiff himself as he was driving his car rashly and negligently and at excessive speed that since the accident was due to the negligence of the plaintiff, he was not entitled to claim damages. As regards then traffic island in question, the defence was that it has been bona fide constructed by the defendant Board with the approval and directions of the police authorities who, were responsible for the control of the traffic, that other necessary precautions to warn public of the existence of such island had been taken by the Board and that due to limited funds at the disposal of the Cantonment Board reasonable arrangement had also been made for lighting hours according to the phases of the moon. It was denied that the plaintiffs suffered any permanent or serious injury. It was submitted that the amount of damages claimed was imaginary and excessive.

4. The first vital question which arises for decision in the case is whether the Cantonment Board. Agra was legall