1. The unsuccessful defendants have filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1988 rendered by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam in C.O.S. No. 14-B/85, thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 20,100-00 with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till payment on Rs. 20,000/-.

2. Facts lie in a narrow compass.

The respondent held the post of Upper Division Teacher. On 16.1.1984, he offered himself for Family Planning operation in the Primary Health Center, Sailana. The operation was conducted and the respondent was applauded for his submission to operation in national interest. The operation, however, did not prove beneficial and even after operation, a daughter was born to him on 16.4.1985. Irked, he issued notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the demand was not met, he filed the aforesaid civil suit for a decree of damages quantified at Rs. 20,000-00 and notice charges of Rs. 100-00. He also claimed interest. The appellants opposed the claim. On evaluation of evidence, the learned trial Judge granted the decree as noted above.

3. Dissatisfied by the decree, the appellants have filed this appeal.

4. The appeal was filed beyond limitation. On 2.11.1989, the delay in presentation of the appeal was condoned.

5. The appellants have paid the decretal amount to the respondent.

6. The respondent admits receipt of the decretal amount.

7. I have heard Shri Anand Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants and Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abdul Salim for the respondent.

8. Shri Agrawal submitted that the particulars of damages are not furnished and that the evidence is not properly appreciated. Shri Pavecha, on the other hand, doubed the aforesaid contention as non-meritorious and submitted that the quantification of damages rested on the basis of maintenance of the daughter @ Rs. 100-00 per month till her attaining the majority. According to Shri Pavecha, the damages claimed were on the low side because the respondent was not in a position to pay the Court fees for higher amount.

9. I proceed to examine the worth of rival contentions.

10. The Family Planning operation is not disputed. Failure of operation and frustration of object are also not disputed. What is contended is that (a) there was no actionable negligence; (b) the particulars of damage were not pleaded and proved; and (c) the appellants are erroneously held liable to pay the quantified amount by way of damages.

11. The learned trial judge concluded as under:-

^^'kklu&çfroknh dks okn çLrqr fd;s tkus ds iwoZ çn'kZ ih-8 ds çk:i dk lwpuk i= Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA ;g lwpuk i= çkIr gksuk oknksÙkrj dh nkafMd 8 esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA bl lwpuki= esa 'kklu ls :- 20]000 dh ekax dh xbZ FkhA orZeku eagxkbZ ds ;qx esa 'kklu fdlh cPps ds ykyu ikyu ds :i esa 100½ :- çfrekg ns; gksuk lk/kkj.k lh ckr gS] vkSj bl eku ls çR;sd cPps ds fy;s 1200½ :- okf"kZd O;; LokHkkfod gSA o;Ld gksus rd rks 100½ :- çfrekg dh jkf'k Hkh de gksxhA 'kklu dh uhfr ds vuqlkj 18 o"kZ ls de vk;q dh ckfydk dk fookg ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj ;fn viuh larku] tksfd vkijs'ku ds Ik'pkr gqbZ dk ykyu ikyu vk'kkjke dks djuk gS rks mls fu'p; gh mls 18 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ gksus rd mls 20 gtkj ls Hkh vf/kd O;; djuk gksxkA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh vk'kkjke 20]000½ :- dh {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] vkSj og lwpuk i= O;; 100½ :- Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA**

12. Negligence is the omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man would do or doing something which such a man would not do. Negligence can be inferred from facts and circumstances. (1938) 2 All ER 621, (1918) 2KB 523 and ILR 1969 MP 631 (M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Sudhakar) are pertinent. Lord Brightman in Furniss v. Dawson (1984) 1 All ER 530 observed:-

"The fact that the Court accepted that each step in a transaction was a genuine step producing its intended legal result did not confine the Court to considerin