AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopala, J.—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.
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 Judgment, etc., and ordered the Government to pay the
Court Fees.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 adopted as out of context one and the same cannot be sustainable in the eye of law.
According to the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants, the trial court assumed that the alleged Passenger Shed collapsed
within a period of 1 1/2 years from the date of its construction and that by itself is a negligent act in the matter of construction and maintenance
which is not correct legally and also, the trial court has not given any finding as to how the Appellants 1 and 2 are responsible jointly and severally
to pay the compensation at all.
Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants that the trial court has applied the principles of
Motor Vehicles Act in determining the quantum of compensation in respect of the death of Bertine Antony Maidjasse, which is not sustainable in
the eye of law.
In short, the contention of the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants/Defendants is that the trial court has not adverted to
the material factual aspects and legal aspects of the matter in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore prays
for allowing the Appeal to promote substantial cause of justice.
In response, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Plaintiffs submits that the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the plaint have claimed a
total compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs from the Appellants/Defendants and the Fourth Defendant/Contractor jointly and severally with just interest
from the date of filing of the suit and the trial court on an appreciation and scrutiny of the available oral and documentary evidence on record has
come to the resultant conclusion in awarding Rs. 5,20,200/-together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.P. (Pauper Suit) till date of
realisation which is a reasonable, fair one and the same need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Appeal at this distance of time.
It is useful for this Court to refer to the oral evidence of P.W1 and D. Ws.1 to 3 which play a significant role in the present case.
The First Respondent/First Plaintiff has been examined as PW1. PW1 in her evidence has deposed that the Respondents 2 to 4 are her minor
children and her husband is the deceased Bertine Antony Maidjasse and he served as a Constable in Puducherry Police Station and on
22.06.1996, at about 06.30 p.m. in the evening her deceased husband Bertine Antony Maidjasse after returning from his work at Bahour Police
Station near Kuruvi Natham Vazhapattu junction waiting for the bus at the Bus Stop/Passenger Shed, at that time, the Passenger Shed/Bus Stop
collapsed and because of the shed collapsed her husband died on the spot itself and the Bus Stop/Passenger Shed has been maintained by the
Third Appellant/Third Defendant and the Fourth Defendant/Contractor is the person who has constructed the Passenger Shed and since the Third
Appellant/Third Defendant comes within the purview of Pudhucherry Government and local Administrative Department, the Appellants 1 and 2
have been arrayed as parties to the suit.
The evidence of P.W1 is also to the effect that it is wrong to state that on the date of accident, there has been incessant rain and she has
claimed approximate compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for which she issued Ex.A6 Notice to the Defendants and they have not given reply to the
Notice.
It is the evidence of P.W1 (in cross-examination by D4 counsel) that the shed has been constructed in the supervision of the Third
Appellant/Third Defendant and the shed has been handed over to the Commune Panchayat and it is only after 1 1/2 years of handing over
possession to the Third Appellant/Third Defendant, the shed has got collapsed and she has not filed any documents to show that the shed was
constructed out of sub standard and spurious materials.
P.W1 goes on to add in her evidence that since her husband died at the age of 40 in the accident she has claimed a compensation of Rs. 10
Lakhs and that a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh has been given by the Third Appellant/Third Defendant as compensation for the death of her husband.
D.W1 (Assistant Engineer in Thirunallar Commune Panchayat) has deposed that the bus shelter described in the plaint has been constructed by
the Defendants under his supervision and at that time, the shelter has been maintained by the Third Appellant/Third Defendant and it has been
constructed with quality materials prescribed by P.W.D. Specifications and these materials were not of sub standard quality as claimed in the suit
and the bus shelter has collapsed due to heavy rain accompanying with thunder and lightning with high velocity of winds.
The evidence of D.W1 is also to the effect that the construction of the bus shelter has been completed on 06.01.1995 and soon after the
collapse of the shelter, he has visited the spot and they are not in the practice of maintaining any register for inspecting the construction building
under his control and after the construction of the shelter, it is the duty of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant Commune Panchayat for maintaining
the same and there is no maintenance Register for the same.
D.W2 (Senior Clerk in the office of Daily Thanthi, Pondicherry) in his evidence has deposed that he has brought the Daily Thanthi Newspaper
dated 23.06.1996 of Pondicherry Edition and in that paper at page No. 4, paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, it is reported that there was heavy rain at
Kuruvinatham Village accompanied by heavy thunder and lightning with high velocity of wind and this has been reported based upon the Report
submitted by their area reporter.
D.W2 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the Report has not been published in their Newspaper after verification from the
Weather Office, Pondicherry (Meteorological Office) and he does not know whether the Report has been based on any authenticated document
obtained from the Weather Office, Pondicherry.
D.W3 (Fourth Defendant/Contractor) in his evidence has stated that he is a licenced P.W.D. Contractor and he has submitted his tender for
the construction work of a passenger shelter at Kuruvinatham Village, Vazhapattu junction and he has been entrusted with the work and he has
constructed the shed under the direct supervision of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant and he has
started the construction during the month of November 1994 and completed the constructed in the month of January 1995 and after completion of
the work, he has handed over the shed to the Third Appellant/Third Defendant after inspection of the same by the Assistant Engineer and Junior
Engineer of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant.
According to the evidence of D.W3, after completion of the construction of the shed, it is the duty of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant to
maintain the same properly and that the materials used for the construction have been duly verified by the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer
with reference to quality and also with reference to specification and the shed has collapsed only after 1 1/2 years after handing over it to the Third
Appellant/Third Defendant and that he has been acquitted in S.T.R. No. 267 of 1998 and further, the suit filed against him is not maintainable in
law.
It is to be noted that negligence becomes actionable if actual damage can be established. As a matter of fact ''Negligence alone does not give a
cause of action; the two must co-exist'' as per decision J.R. Munday ltd., v. London C.C. 1960(2) Kin 331, 334.
It is to borne in mind that the tort of negligence comprises of three essential requisites, each of which must arise viz., a) duty b) breach and c)
resulting damage. Indeed, the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the Defendant to the complainant must be there. Also, the failure
to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty. Damage, which is both casually connected with
such breach and recognised by the Law, has been occasioned to the complainant.
The duty of a Contractor in constructing a building or shed is to use the reasonable care and skill and such persons of ordinary competence,
measured by the professional standard of the time. The building Contractor if not properly constructing the bus shed/Passenger Shed then he will
be liable in negligence.
In evidence of negligence, the well known principle is Res ipsa loquitur i.e., the occurrence speaks for itself. In the instant case on hand, the
Passenger Shed/Bus Stop has got collapsed on 22.06.1996 and on that date, the Deceased Constable has been standing in the Passenger Shed
waiting to return to his home after completion of his duty at the police station. At that point of time, the Passenger Shed collapsed as a result of
which the Constable viz., Bertine Antony Maidjasse viz., the Husband of the First Respondent/First Plaintiff died. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have
proved the happening of the accident in the present case on hand. If the Respondents/Plaintiffs establish the manner of occurrence of accident then
nothing more is required under the principle of Res ipsa loquitur. In such a case, the Respondents/Plaintiffs cannot prove more i) whether they can
or not does not proceed to establish any specific act or omission on the part of the Appellants/Defendants. The mere ''occurrence of accident''
speaks for itself since it will more consistent with negligence on the part of the Appellants/Defendants than with another cause. If that is so, a Court
of law may find negligence on the part of the Appellants, since they give reasonable explanation to show how the accident has occurred without
negligence on their part.
The principle of ''Res ipsa locquitur'' comes into operative play on the following factors, i) on proof of the happening an unexplained
occurrence; ii) when the occurrence is one, which would not have happened in the ordinary course of things without negligence on the part of
somebody other than the Plaintiff; and iii) the circumstances point to the negligence in question being that of any other persons;
The third requirement is fulfilled by showing that the instrument, causing the damage has been in the management and control of the Defendant,
at the time of occurrence, but this is not essential.
The doctrine of Res ipsa locquitur will not apply when the cause of accident is known. A fall of the ceiling of a Theatre, hitting a member of the
audience is a prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of occupiers of the theatre. Similarly, a brick falling out of railway bridge and struck a
person on the highway is also a negligence.
When the maxim Res ipsa locquitur applies and a prima facie case of the negligence against the Defendant has been proved, it is insufficient for
the Defendant to say merely that he has acted carefully but he can rebut the case by proving that he was not negligent even though he cannot prove
how the accident has taken place. However, if the Defendants furnished a reasonable explanation, which is equally consistent with the accident
happening without their negligence as with their negligence, they have again shifted their burden of proof back to the Plaintiffs to show as they
always to show from the early stage that it was the negligence of the Defendants that caused the accident.
In considering the effect of reasonable explanation, it is to be noted that whether res established amounts to prima facie evidence of negligence,
which is a question of law, and the second is whether the negligence ought to be held to be proved, which is a question of fact. When res ipsa
loquitur applies, it is not strictly essential for the Defendant to disprove negligence. It is sufficient for him to neutralise the effect of presumption,
raised by the res. In practice, the difference between neutralising the effect of the prima facie case and disproving the negligence may be so small as
to be immaterial.
A court of law has to judge after analysing all the evidence placed before it, whether on balance the facts establish that the Plaintiffs has proved
their case, the burden of which remained at the end as it was at the beginning, on them to discharge. If the Defendants let in no evidence there is
nothing to rebut the inference of negligence, but if they let in evidence that has to be measured to see whether it is still reasonable to draw the
inference of negligence from the mere fact of the happening of the accident.
The Respondents/Plaintiffs have issued Ex.A6 Lawyer''s Notice dated 14.08.1987 to the Appellants 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 and to the
Contractor/Fourth Defendant. In the said Notice, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have claimed a minimal compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs. In the plaint,
they have averred that the minimal monthly pension on the death of the husband of the First Respondent/First Plaintiff shall be atleast Rs. 2,500/-to
ensure the dependency and benefit of life to the Respondents/Plaintiffs for atleast 20 years from the retirement of the Deceased and on such
estimate, they have claimed a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
Before the trial court, the Third Appellant/Third Defendant has filed a Written Statement wherein it is averred that Bahour Commune
Panchayat Council resolved to construct a passenger waiting shed near Vazhapattu at Kuruvinatham and the work has been entrusted to the
Fourth Defendant and the shed has been constructed based on the estimation, plan and design duly approved by the competent Technical
Authorities of the Department and the said Authorities are the technically known how the persons in the field and also, the Third Appellant/Third
Defendant has closely watched the due execution of the construction of the Passenger Shed throughout all the days of the work and further, the
quality and quantity of building materials and stock have been permitted for use only after being subjected to thorough examination by people who
are luminaries with vase expertise to see that the work remain unblemished and perfect in all respects.
Continuing further, the Third Appellant/Third Defendant in the Written Statement has also stated that it has taken every sincere effort in
maintaining quality of the material use and utilised the best workmanship and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Pondicherry as per Letter dated
03.07.1996 has opined that the workmanship and quality of the materials used are satisfactory and so probable cause of death has not been due to
the sub standard quality of the material and workmanship and that the Engineer himself has admitted as per his Letter that the cause of the death
may be due to high wind, lightning and thunder leading to the sudden collapse of the slab.
According to the Third Appellant/Third Defendant, on 22.06.1996, there has been heavy rain and the Reports about the accident published in
the Newspaper and further, the Report of the local public and the Report of the Police Authorities of Bahour Police Station would go to show that
the accident has taken place due to heavy rain and the accident is an Act of God, which is bound to happen cannot be prevented by human skill.
The sum and substance of the contention of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant is that it is not in anyway responsible for the shed accident
and that the sudden collapse has taken place due to viz., major and external force such as heavy rain coupled with lightning and thunder.
The Third Appellant/Third Defendant''s Written Statement has been adopted by the Defendants 1 and 2 as per Memo dated 08.10.2001 filed
by their counsel.
The Contractor/Fourth Defendant before the trial court in the Written Statement has among other things mentioned that there is no Act of
Negligence or defective construction by using spurious materials and subsequent to the construction, the building has been inspected and it has
been approved by the officials of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant and handed over to the Municipality and the accident has taken place after
1 1/2 years of handing over of the Passenger Shed, it is the duty of the Defendants to maintain or up-keeping of the Passenger Shed.
In the Written Statement, the Fourth Defendant has also stated that he has been charged for an alleged offence u/s 304A of I.P.C. By Bohour
Police Station and he has contested the same and he has been acquitted in STR 267/98 on 20.08.1999 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Pondicherry and the Criminal Court has observed that using of the sub standard materials for constructing the Passenger Shed have not been
established to the satisfaction of the Court and as such, the suit is not maintainable.
A perusal of the Criminal Court judgment Ex.B1 in STR 267/98 dated 20.08.1999 points out that a rash and negligent act of the Accused for
the obligation of 304A I.P.C. should be proximate the cause of death and not any act or omission which can at the most said to be the cause of
death and therefore, the Fourth Defendant/Accused cannot be found guilty under the second and accordingly, he has been acquitted as per Section
255(1) Code of Criminal Procedure And he has been ordered to be set at liberty.
It is apt for this Court in the present case to state that the Reporter of Tamil Newspaper Daily Thanthi has not been examined and as such, the
Report of the Newspaper for establishing the case of the Appellants that the collapse of the Passenger Shed has been due to the Act of God and
their control, etc., is not accepted by this Court. Generally, a Reporter who publish the concern Report will have to be examined. But in the instant
case, the Reporter of Daily Thanthi who publish in the Newspaper about the accident of shed collapse has not been examined and it is certainly not
a favourable circumstance in favour of the Appellants/Defendants in the considered opinion of this Court.
It cannot be denied that the Passenger Shed is collapsed within 1 1/2 years of its construction. How the Passenger Shed or Bus Stop has been
collapsed on 22.06.1996 the date of accident is to be explained on the side of the Appellants/Defendants. Though an endeavour has been made
on the side of the Appellants/Defendants that there has been heavy rain, lightning and wind on the date of accident, the Plaintiffs have denied the
same and according to them, there have been a slight rain. No one from the Meteorological office/Weather office has been examined to speak
about the the heavy Rainfall/lightning or wind in the instant case.
In the present case, though an allegation made against the Fourth Defendant/Contractor that he has used the sub standard materials for the
construction of Passenger Shed, etc., the same has not been proved to the satisfaction of this Court. In a criminal case as per Ex.B1 Judgment in
STR No. 267/98 dated 20.08.1999 , the Fourth Defendant who has been charged u/s 304A of I.P.C. has been acquitted by the Learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry. Therefore, the plea of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that the Fourth Defendant/Contractor has constructed the
shed without sub standard materials, etc., falls flat to the ground as opined by this Court. Moreover, the evidence of D.W1 (Assistant Engineer)
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat) shows that the Passenger Shed has been constructed with quality materials with P.W.D specifications and those
materials have not been of sub standard quality.
As stated earlier, in a case of Res ipsa locquitur in regard to the happening of the accident viz., the Passenger Shed getting collapsed on the
date of accident as a result of which Constable the Husband of the First Respondent/First Plaintiff died itself proves the happening of the accident
and this is more consistent with the negligence on the part of the Appellants/Defendants. Admittedly, there is no written document/Register to show
that the constructed Passenger Shed/bus shelter has been maintained and inspected properly periodically. Even assuming for a moment that on
22.06.1996 the date of accident, there has been heavy rain, lightning, etc., there may not be an independent evidence to show that only because of
heavy wind, lightning and rain, the bus shelter has fallen down. In the instant case, such an evidence is lacking. The Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3
owe a duty of care viz., a General duty, a special or Limited duty. Since Negligence is a breach of duty to take care and the very fact that the bus
shelter/Bus Stop has got collapsed on 22.06.1996 itself proves that the duty to take care either on the basis of trust or on the basis of law has not
been adverted to by the concerned Authorities.
To put it pinpointedly, ''Negligence'' means more than the heedless/careless conduct whether any omission or commission and it properly
connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffers by the person to whom the duty is owing. The essential principle of
negligence liability is that a litigant complained of must owe to the party complaining a duty to take care and that the party complaining must be able
to prove that he has suffered damage in consequence of breach of that duty. It is relevant for this Court at this point of time make a significant
mention that the term of ''Negligence'' is as employed in the sense of breach of duty to care. Sometimes it means as careless conduct. Even without
reference to any duty being imposed to take care, the term ''Negligence'' is employed in the sense of careless conduct. Negligence is omission to
do something which a reasonable man guided upon those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing
something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. To put it differently, an Act of Negligence when it is done not with the desire of
producing any particular defect but actually producing that result by carelessness or indifference. Negligence as a state of mind is the opposite of
intention. An act is intentional when it is purposeful and done with either the desire or the object of producing particular result. A negligent is a state
of mind consistent with an intention to exercise, at any rate, some care.
In S.P Aramasivam Achari V. the Headmaster, Government High School, Amur, Musiri Taluk, trichy district and others 1999 MLJ 441, it is
held as follows:
As the death occurred within the campus of the school, the Respondents are bound to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. The other factor to
be noted in the case is that the wall was damaged and the school authorities did not care to report the same which shows that there was negligence
on the part of the Respondents. The Respondents are liable to compensate for the loss suffered by the Petitioner due to arbitrary action of the
Respondents.
As per Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, Newspapers are admissible in evidence without formal proof. However, the subject matter
printed therein is no proof of the truth of its contents. As a matter of fact, the statement of a fact in a newspaper is merely Hearsay and is in
admissible in the absence of the maker of a statement deposing to his knowledge about the fact reported as per decision Narayan V. Radha
Gobinda AIR 197 CAL 53. On the question of truth, this type of hearsay is obviously inadmissible in a Court of law as per decision Bawa Sarup
Singh V. R AIR 1925 Lah 299.
As far as the present case is concerned, the fact that the Bus Shelter/Bus Stop on the date of accident is a clear case to Res ipsa loquitur and
the plea of the Appellants that only due to Act of God because of heavy rain velocity of wind, lightning and thunder the shelter got collapsed is not
worthy of credence and hence the same is not accepted by this Court. In regard to the maintenance of the bus shelter after the same being handed
over after construction by the Fourth Defendant to the parties concerned, there is no Register to establish the same. Also added, factor is in regard
to the heavy rain, high velocity, thunder and lightning, a Reporter of a Newspaper viz., Daily Thanthi who published the accident report has not
been examined before the trial Court. Further more, no one from the Weather Office has also been examined before the trial court to speak about
the heavy rain with high velocity of wind accompanied with lightning and thunder. When the Respondents/Plaintiffs have taken a plea in the plaint
that there has been only slight rain on the date of occurrence, the burden of proof is not statistic and it shifts from one position to another. To put it
precisely, the Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3 have not established to the satisfaction of this Court that on the date of accident, there has been heavy
rain with high velocity of wind accompanied by thunder and lightning.
Since the Passenger Shed/Bus Stop has collapsed on 22.06.1996, the date of accident and in the instant case, although the
Respondents/Plaintiffs have not established before this Court a) that Appellants 1 to 3 are squarely responsible either for faulty construction; b) or
for not carrying out the supervision of the said construction properly, in the absence of the Third Appellant/Third Defendant not proving to the
satisfaction of this Court that it has maintained the subject Bus Shelter/Passenger Shed periodically in a proper fashion, the Appellants 1 to 3 are
liable (Appellants 1 and 2 are vicariously liable for Appellant No. 3) and further, inasmuch as it is not established by the Appellants/Defendants that
the Bus Shelter/Passenger Shed is collapsed due to an Act of God and because of the candid fact that the First Respondent/First Plaintiff''s
husband died due to the collapse of the Shelter/Shed falling upon him, when he has been waiting at the Bus Stop in the evening on the ill fated day,
on 22.06.1996, in the present case, it is proved by evidence of D.W.1 that no sub-standard materials have been used in regard to the construction
of the Passenger Shed by the Fourth Defendant/Contractor and as such, this Court holds that the Passenger Shed/Bus Stop has not been
constructed by the Fourth Defendant in a faulty manner and the points 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON POINT No. 4:
The Respondents/Plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs as compensation. The Deceased Constable viz., the First Respondent/First
Plaintiff''s husband has been getting a monthly salary at the time of his death as Rs. 3411/-. The Deceased Police Constable (Husband of the 1st
Respondent) has committed no wrong. His family has suffered a wrong on account of his untimely death under tragic circumstances.
It is to be remembered that certain aspects of human life is quite capable of monetary measurement. Yet an Homo-Sapien''s life is ;beyond the
reach of monetary scale. The fixation of compensation of human life is an Herculean task. However, when a Court of law when it awards
compensation in terms of money ought to award as early as possible a perfect sum of money as is within its domain and power. In short, it is the
duty of a Court to award a sensible and a fair compensation by means of a pecuniary consideration to the family of the Deceased.
In Ex.A1 Marriage Certificate, the Deceased Constable''s Date of Birth is mentioned as 10.01.1952. The ill fated accident in the present case
has taken place on 22.06.1996 at 20.00 hrs. Therefore, at the time of death of the First Respondent/First Plaintiff''s Husband''s age is 44 years.
He has left behind 14 years of balance service to be rendered. The trial court has adopted a multiplier of 18 and after deducting one third towards
personal expenses of the Deceased, a sum of Rs. 1,137/-the Loss of Dependency to the Family is determined at Rs. 2,274/-per month, per year
the same works out to Rs. 27,288 (Rs. 2,274 X 12=Rs.27,288/-). Towards the Loss of Income/Loss of Dependency when it works out it comes
to Rs. 4,91,184/-(Rs. 27,288 X 18) The trial court towards Loss of Consortium, etc., has awarded a sum of Rs. 29,000/-. Thus in aggregated it
quantified the compensation at Rs. 5,20,200/-together with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of O.P. (filed in indigent capacity till date. The
trial court has also apportioned the compensation amount to Rs. 5,20,200/-together with interest at 9%p.a. in its Judgment. Though an argument
advanced on the side of the Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3 that the trial court has adopted the multiplier method as provided in the Motor Vehicles
Act, there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the trial court since it is duty of the trial court to award as perfect a sum to which the
Respondents/Plaintiffs are entitled to and further, the Decree of the trial court must be a prudent, sensible fair and Equitable one based on the facts
and circumstances of the case. In the present case on hand, because of unexpected death of the Deceased Bertine Antony Maidjasse, his family
the Respondents/Plaintiffs have been shattered and battered. The Respondents/Plaintiffs undoubtedly have lost a bread winner around the age of
44 years. The said amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-decreed by the trial court together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. (suit filed
in informa pauperis on 29.07.1998 till date of payment) cannot be in any manner said to be an exorbitant/excessive/arbitrary or a bonansa or
extravagant one or even in the case of wind fall, in the considered opinion of this Court. Per contra, the same is a Fair, just and Equitable
compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. Though the Respondents/Plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs for
the death of the Deceased Constable they have not preferred any Appeal as against the judgment and Decree passed by the trial court when it is
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,20,200/-together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till date of realisation. Therefore, looking at from
any angle, the Decree passed by the trial court in awarding a sum of Rs. 5,20,200/-as compensation for the death of the Deceased Bertine Antony
Maidjasse payable by the Appellants/Defendants jointly and severally does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality and
therefore, they are not to be interfered with and resultantly, the Appeal fails and the fourth point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the judgment and Decree dated 06.01.2003 in
O.S. No. 315 of 1999 passed by the trial court viz.,the Learned Sub Judge, Pondicherry is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this
Appeal.