Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 870
2011 (3) MLJ 846
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
M. Oman & Another
Versus
Union of India, represented by The Secretary to Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others
A.S.Nos.320 & 322 of 2004
Decided on : 18-02-2011
For the Appellant:R. Natarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 - M. Devendran, Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government, R2 & R3 - D. Srinivasan, Govt. Pleader (Pondy).
The court held that the respondents/defendants were liable for gross negligence in maintaining the building and that the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to enhanced compensation.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - LIABILITY - GROSS NEGLIGENCE - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - ENHANCEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
On 27.02.1998, the appellants/plaintiffs, who were working as a Junior Clerk and as a Copyist in the Copy Section of the Additional District Court, Karaikal, sustained serious injuries when a portion of the roof of the building collapsed on them. They filed suits for compensation against the respondents/defendants, including the Public Works Department, alleging gross negligence in maintaining the building. The trial court awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004 and Rs.1,10,000/- to the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellants preferred appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondents/defendants were liable for gross negligence in maintaining the building and that the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to enhanced compensation. The court found that the Public Works Department had failed to take timely action to repair the roof of the building despite repeated requests from the Head of Office of the Judicial Department. The court also found that the respondents/defendants had not taken diligent action in carrying out necessary repairs and renovation works of the roof of the District Court building at Karaikal. The court held that the crumbling and collapsing of the entire roof of the Copy Section of the District Court building goes to show that the appellants/plaintiffs have proved the factum and the result of the incident. The set of circumstances as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the appellants/plaintiffs/injured victims/Court staff members, unerringly points out that it is a clear case of Negligence.
Issues: ['Whether the respondents/defendants are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse of the entire roof of the Copy Section building on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m?', 'Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the respondents/defendants for the injuries sustained by him?']
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents/defendants were liable for gross negligence in maintaining the building and that the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to enhanced compensation. The court found that the Public Works Department had failed to take timely action to repair the roof of the building despite repeated requests from the Head of Office of the Judicial Department. The court also found that the respondents/defendants had not taken diligent action in carrying out necessary repairs and renovation works of the roof of the District Court building at Karaikal. The court held that the crumbling and collapsing of the entire roof of the Copy Section of the District Court building goes to show that the appellants/plaintiffs have proved the factum and the result of the incident. The set of circumstances as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the appellants/plaintiffs/injured victims/Court staff members, unerringly points out that it is a clear case of Negligence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part and enhanced the compensation awarded by the trial court to Rs.1,20,000/- in A.S.No.320 of 2004 and Rs.1,50,000/- in A.S.No.322 of 2004, along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till date of realization.
1. A.S.No.320 of 2004 has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002 in O.S.No.51 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
2. A.S.No.322 of 2004 has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002 in O.S.No.37 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. A.S.No.320 of 2004:
3. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and available documentary evidence on record, while passing the judgment in O.S.No.51 of 2002 on 31.10.2002, has among other things observed that 'the appellant/plaintiff has sustained the permanent disability of 49.8% and for his permanent disability granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards the plaintiff's attendant expenses and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant/plaintiff together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and also with costs'. Further, it directed the first respondent/first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and passed a decree to that effect. Moreover, three months time has been granted to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment.
4. Before the trial Court, in the main suit in O.S.No.51 of 2002, three issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 have been marked. Also, Ex.X.1 to X.5 have been marked as Court Exhibits.
5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff as an aggrieved person, has projected the present appeal in A.S.No.320 of 2004, claiming enhancement of compensation.
6. The points for consideration in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the respondents/defendants are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse of the entire roof of the Copy Section building on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m?
(ii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the respondents/defendants for the injuries sustained by him? A.S.No.322 of 2004:
7. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and available documentary evidence on record, while passing the judgment in O.S.No.37 of 2002 on 31.10.2002, has inter alia observed that 'the appellant/plaintiff has sustained the permanent disability of 68.8% for which, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards the plaintiff's attendant expenses, and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant/plaintiff together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and also with costs'. Further, it directed the first respondent/first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and passed a decree to that effect. Also, three months time has been granted to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment.
8. Before the trial Court, in the main suit in O.S.No.37 of 2002, three issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 have been marked. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B
