The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendants for the faulty construction of the bus stop, the application of the principle of negligence, duty of care, and the determination of compensation for the death of the deceased constable.

1. The Appellants/Defendants D1 to D3 have preferred the present Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.01.2003 in O.S.No.315 of 1999 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.

2. The trial court while passing the Judgment in O.S.No.315 of 1999 dated 06.01.2003 has among other things observed that the Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3 are made liable to pay the compensation to the Respondents/Plaintiffs and not the Fourth Defendant in this case and further directed the Appellants/Defendants D1 to D3 to pay a compensation amount of Rs.5,20,200/-in equal proportions with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.P. till date of payment within three months from the date of Judgement, etc., and ordered the Government to pay the Court Fees.

3. Before the trial court, on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs, Witness P.W.1 (First Respondent/Plaintiff) has been examined and Exs.A1 to A10 have been marked. On the side of the Appellants/Defendants D1 to D3, Witness D.W1 to D.W3 have been examined and Ex.B1 has been marked.

4. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.315 of 1999 dated 06.01.2003, the Appellants/Defendants D1 to D3 have projected the present Appeal before this Court as aggrieved persons.

5. The points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are: i) Whether the Bus Stop (Passenger Shed) has been constructed by the Fourth Defendant in a faulty manner? ii) Whether the Third Appellant/Third Defendant and the First Appellant and Second Appellant/Defendants D1 and D2 are squarely responsible for the faulty construction of the shed and for not carrying out the supervision of the said construction work properly? iii) Whether the Bus Stop (Passenger Shed) has collapsed due to Act of God resulting in the death of Constable Bertine Antony Maiojassee? iv) Whether the Respondents/Plaintiffs are entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs as minimal damages together with just interest from the Appellants/Defendants? CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINTS 1 TO 3:

6. According to the Learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry), the Appellants 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the suit claim because of the fact that the Plaintiffs have stated that the bus shed in issue belongs to the Third Appellant/Third Defendant which called for the tender and caused it to be constructed by the Fourth Defendant/Contractor and the Third Appellant/Third Defendant being governed by the Pondicherry Commune Panchayat Act is only responsible if at all there is any act of offence is made out and in short, absolutely there is no cause of action against the Appellants 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2.

7. It is the contention of the Learned Government Pleader that the trial court having found that the Fourth Defendant/Contractor who built the Passenger Shed is also jointly and severally liable but in one single stroke it observed that "with regard to the payment of compensation as already discussed the Fourth Defendant/Contractor is to be exempted from paying compensation along with the other Defendants and the trial court without any legal or factual basis in this regard has applied this rider incorrectly and therefore, the Judgment of the trial court in this regard is to be set aside by this Court, in the interest of justice.

8. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no evidence in regard to the manner in which the alleged accident taken place on 22.06.1996 and further, the trial court should have considered that because of the rain, the Passenger Shed has fallen naturally on the date of accident and it is an Act of God but this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial court in proper perspective.

9. Proceeding further, the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants submits that the trial court has adopted the concept of Neverthless Application and this is ado