( 1 ) WHO deserves greater sympathy the lowly paid workman of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (O. N. G. C.) who became blind in one eye whilst sweating for it or the O. N. G. C. itself who has become blind in both the eyes and is fighting tooth and nail with all the technical arguments at its disposal and legal talents at its command with the limitless public funds at its disposal ? Let alone being an ideal employer can one not expect the O. N. G. C. to be a fair and humane employer ? Should it prefer to spend thousands to pay to lawyers rather than to compensate its own employee who has sustained permanent loss of an eye in the course of winning oil and profits for the O. N. G. C. and for the Nation ? These questions come to the fore since a 30 year old Welder employed by the O. N. G. C. lost his right eye by reason of the fact that a piece of metal caused injury to his eye in the course of an operation undertaken by the patty of Drillers of which he was a member for retrieving a precious instrument known as well-head. It appears that when the pipe was being pulled by recourse to the tackle system by a tractor the holes in the pipe snapped and a piece of metal entered into the right eye of the Welder concerned who was at the site in connection with the retrieving operations. The incident occurred on 12/02/1974 The Welder concerned instituted a suit for recovering a total amount of Rs. 85 0 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. It was resisted on the ground that the O. N. G. C. or its officers who were at the site were not guilty of any negligence. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant or its officers were guilty of negligence. In this view of the matter the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. In the course of his judgment he recorded a finding that in case the O. N. G. C. could be held liable in damages he would the damages at the figure of Rs. 53 525 The unsuccessful plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present appeal

( 2 ) TWO questions arise : (1) Whether it is established by the plaintiff that the 0. N. G. C. or its officers were guilty of negligence and (2) The quantum of damages.

( 3 ) SO far as the first point is concerned it is the case of the plaintiff that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is attracted to the facts of this case and that the burden to establish than all proper safeguards and all appropriate precautions were taken rests on the shoulders of O. N. G C. It is furthermore contended that the 0. N. G. C. was guilty of negligence inasmuch as it had failed to provide for a safe method for carrying out the retrieving operations and in as much as it had failed to provide supervision by officers who had necessary expertise in the matter.

( 4 ) THE evidence shows that the plaintiff was a member of the party which was headed by one Mr. Sidhu. It was under the instructions and as per the orders of Mr. Sidhu that the plaintiff was at the site in order to carry out the functions entrusted to him. He was directed to grill two holes in the casing pipe which had been inserted in the well which had out to be a dry well in the sense that O. N. G. C. had failed to detect any oil or gas in the drilling operations carried out at the site. The plaintiff carried out the orders and drilled two holes in the casing pipe. A wire rope was passed through the two holes and it was then passed through a pulley. The wire rope was then tied to a tractor. As the tractor started moving the wire rope was pulled and in its turn the pipe was pulled upwards. By the time a distance of about 2 ft. was covered by the tractor it became evident that the casing pipe would not give way any further. The tractor was moved forward in order to give a pull. While the tractor was being so pulled one of the holes in the casing pipe snapped. A piece of the snapped pipe flew into the air and hit the plaintiff on his ri