Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
C. B. CAPOOR, J.
Jai Singh
Versus
Mansha Ram
First Appeal No. 1 of 1960
Decided On : 10-11-1962
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT - WRONGFUL ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES - PECUNIARY LOSS - REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Mehanga Ram, son of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was passing over a suspension bridge on river Sutlej when it tilted and he fell down in the river below. His body could not be traced and it is alleged that he breathed his last as a result of falling down. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as damages against the appellant, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Union of India respondent No. 3.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court held that the respondents were not paupers and that the plaint disclosed enforceable cause of action. 2. The suit was not barred by the law of limitation. 3. Mehanga Ram died as a result of falling down from the bridge. 4. The Court held that respondent No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 and the deceased was born of that union. 5. The tilting of the bridge was due to wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the appellant or the labourers under his employ. The appellant was vicariously liable for the loss, if any, occasioned by the death of the deceased. The deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence. 6. The Court held that pecuniary loss had been caused to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as a result of the death of the deceased. 7. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below was not excessive.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court below erred in allowing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to sue as paupers? 2. Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation? 3. Whether Mehanga Ram died as a result of falling down from the bridge? 4. Whether the Court below erred in holding that respondent No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 and the deceased was born of that union? 5. Whether the tilting of the bridge was not due to wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the appellant or the labourers under his employ? In case the first part of the question is answered in the affirmative and the second part in the negative, was the appellant not vicariously liable for the loss, if any, occasioned by the death of the deceased? Was the deceased guilty of contributory negligence? 6. Whether the Court below was wrong in holding that pecuniary loss had been caused to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as a result of the death of the deceased? 7. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reasons assigned by the Court below for allowing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other plaintiffs to sue as paupers were quite sound. 2. The Court held that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the suit against the appellant, the period of notice given to the Union of India respondent No. 3 was liable to be excluded. 3. The Court held that the evidence on record overwhelmingly established that the deceased died as a result of falling down from the bridge. 4. The Court held that the evidence on record established that respondent No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 and the deceased was born of that union. 5. The Court held that the tilting of the bridge was due to neglect of duty on the part of the labourers employed by the appellant. The appellant was vicariously liable for the loss, if any, occasioned by the death of the deceased. The deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence. 6. The Court held that pecuniary loss had been caused to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as a result of the death of the deceased. 7. The Court held that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Court below was not excessive.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. Near Dehar Tehsil Sundernagar district Mandi, there is a suspension bridge on river Sutlej. On one side of the bridge is Bilaspur District and on the other Mandi district. Dehar is in district Mandi. The bridge was suspended on two galvanised iron ropes on each side. It was to be widened and one more galvanised rope was to be added on each side. The contract for the widening of the bridge and for repair work had been given to the appellant. In August, 1955, the bridge was under repairs. Mehanga Ram, hereinafter to be referred as the deceased, the son of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was passing over the bridge from Bilaspur side at about 1 and 2 P. M. on 29-8-1955. All of a sudden the bridge tilted and he fell down in the river below. His body could not be traced and it is alleged that he breathed his last as a result of falling down.
Respondent No. 1 is the father and respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased. They along with their daughters Shankutala and Sheela Devi filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as damages against the appellant, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Union of India respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the deceased was about 17 years old and was studying in 9th class at the time of the incident. He was stated to be a promising student and it was the intent of the family to educate him up to B. A. at least. The suit was filed in forma pauperis.
Thakur Dass son of respondent No. 1 was impleaded as defendant No. 3 under the guardianship of Anant Ram his adoptive father. It was alleged that the aforesaid Anant Ram did not want Thakur Dass to figure as plaintiff and as such he was impleaded as defendant.
It was further alleged in the plaint that the respondents were guilty of neglect of duty inasmuch as no board was put up cautioning the passersby not to cross the bridge and that the ropes had been loosened. A notice under S. 80 Civil P. C., was issued to the respondent No. 3.
3. The suit was resisted by the appellant and respondent No. 3. The former pleaded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitation and the notice sent to respondent No. 3 was not in accordance with law and the period of notice was not liable to be excluded in computing the prescribed period of limitation. It was denied that the deceased was the son of Mansha Ram respondent No. 1. His case was that respondent No. 2 was married to Panchi Ram and the deceased was born of that union, that the aforesaid lady was abducted by respondent No. 1 after the aforesaid marriage and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 or for the matter of that the other plaintiffs did not have a right to maintain the suit.
It was also denied that the ropes of the bridge had been loosened or that there was any neglect of duty on the part of the appellant or any of the labourers employed in connection with the widening of the bridge. The tilting of the bridge was stated to be purely accidental. It was also denied that the deceased was a shining student or that any pecuniary loss had been occasioned as a result of his alleged death. The right of the plaintiffs to claim any sum as damages was repudiated and the amount claimed was stated to be excessive in any case.
4. The defence put forward by respondent No. 3 was substantially identical with the one put forward by the appellant. It was further pleaded by respondent No. 3 that no cause of action had arisen against it as the contract for the widening of the bridge and for effecting repairs to it had been given to the appellant who was an independent contractor and no vicarious liability could be fastened upon it for any neglect of duty on the part of the appellant. The applica
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
