AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Bhansali, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree Dt. 13.8.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Phalodi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appellant has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree. The suit was filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (''the Act'') seeking compensation for death of his buffalo on account of electrocution.
No written statement was filed by the defendants-appellants and no evidence was led.
On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as AW-1 and Dr. Prakash Singh Punia was examined as AW-2 and four documents were exhibited.
After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the buffalo died on account of electrocution which happened on account of negligence on part of the defendants and assessed the damages at Rs. 1,00,000/- and awarded interest as noticed here-in-before.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from a bare perusal of provisions of Section 1A of the Act, it is apparent that the claim made by the plaintiff for death of buffalo was not maintainable under the said provision and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable and the decree, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no written statement was filed by the appellants and consequently, no objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court/maintainability of the suit was raised and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to now agitate the said issue in this appeal.
Though, the appeal was listed for confirmation of the interim order, at the request of both the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself has been finally heard.
The provisions of Section 1A of the Act reads thus:--
"[1A.] Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong.- Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime. Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased; and in every such action, the Court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the Court by its judgment or decree shall direct."
From a bare perusal of the Section, it is apparent that the suit envisaged under the said provision pertains to death of a person caused by wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant and action or suit can be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and children of the person whose death shall have been so caused. The language of Section does not admit any interpretation other than that the suit could only be filed for death of a human being which aspect is further clear from the beneficiaries envisaged under the Act of such a suit.
Admittedly, in the present case, death of person was not involved as the suit only pertains to death of a buffalo and consequently, the same was not maintainable under the provisions of the Act.
So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent regarding not filing of the written statement and not raising the dispute in this regard before the trial Court is concerned, suffice it to notice that the issue raised is a pure question of law which does not require any evidence and therefore, could very well be raised in this appeal though no written statement was filed before the trial Court. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree Dt. 13.8.2012 passed by the trial Court is set-aside. No costs.