AMAR NATH GOEL Vs. MAYUR SYNTAX LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14/06/1982 the plaintiff as usual wasworking in the factory premises of his employer, defendant company, leastrealising that, for him and few others, it was a bad day. On this fateful daya portion of the office building collapsed resulting in death of three personsand grave and serious injuries to various persons. The plaintiff sustainedgrave and serious inKjuries. On the same day he was admitted in FriendsMedical Centre, a private nursing home of Delhi and remained there forover a month and half. He was discharged from the said Nursing Home on 3/08/1982. He was, however, advised to undergo treatment of physiotherapy as well as electric stimulation. Plaintiff took the sa treatmentbetween 26/08/1982 and 22/09/1982 but says that therewas no improvement inspile of the continuous treatment prescribed bydifferent doctors Ultimately the plaintiff resumed his duties as Stores andPurchase Manager with defendant on 1/10/1982. He says that he wasin considerable run down state of heath but joned duties apprehending thatthe defendant may ease him out of his job if he remained away from workvery much longer and also because he got fed up with his immobility andhoped that with resumption of work his condition might improve bothphysically and mentally. He bad worked with the defendant upto 23/11/1982. Plaintiff says that on 24/11/1982 the van of the defendantdid not turn up to pick up the plaintiff. However in the evening the plaintiffwas informed by the Assistant Production Manager of the factory that theManaging Director wanted to see him before he could proceed any furtherin his job. Plaintiff says that he made several attempts to meet the ManagingDirector but did not get the appointment In the meantime he says that hewas receiving periodic assurances from the Works Manager to the effect thatthe Managing Director was considering the possibility of assigning him anew job which would be more confortable. The plaintiff was not given anyassignment. He states that for the first time, on receipt of letter dated 14/03/1984 be learnt that his services had been terminated Plaintiff furthersays that he has failed to find any gainful employement since he started hissearch for it soon after he received the letter dated 14/03/1984 fromthe defendant company. According to plaintiff the physical handicapdissuades any employer to offer him employment, i Plaintiff says that thedefendant company dishonestly, maliciously and wrongfully eased theplaintiff out of its employment. Plaintiff says in the plaint that he has alawful and valid claim of Rs. 17 lakhs as damaged as worked out in theplaint but restricts his claim only to Rs. 4 lakhs because of inability to paycourt fees on the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs. The claim of the Plaintiff is fordamages for wrongful and malacious removal from service, general damagesfor anxiety, shock etc, reimbursement of medical bills, income at Rs. 3000.00per month till the age of 58 years and other benefits etc.

(2.) Defendant admits the collapse of the wall of the factory buildingfacing the North West which bounded the Railing Department, cementgodown and stores. It admits that three persons died and few includingthe plaintiff sustained grave and serious injuries. Defendant also admits thatplaintiff was admited in the Nursing Home on 14/06/1982 and wasdischarged on 3/08/1982. Defendant has pleaded that the entire factorypremises was duly constructed fully in accordance with National BuildingCode. JJ says that entire construction was sound and stable but due tounseen vis major circumstances which were beyond human control and canamply be described as 'act of God' were solely responsible for the collapseof the wall. The unforeseen circumstances, according to defendant, is thatthe wall was struck by lightening which led to the collapse. It is also pleadedthat the services of the plaintiff were terminated in accordance with theterms and conditions on which he had been appointed and that on or aboutNovember 22/23rd 1982 the plaintiff was informed that his services were nolonger required by the defendant.

(3.) The dispute between the parties is with regard to nature of injuriessuffered by the plaintiff, cause of the accident, amount of damages and thefactum and validity of termination of the services of the plaintiff. Plaintiffsays that defendant is absolutely liable for the collapse of its factory building.The collapse, according to the plaintiff, resulted because of baddesigning, sub standard material used therein and on account of poorworkmanship. He also says that the defendant did not exercise due care andattention in constructing a part of the factory building which collapsed.Plaintiff claims to have suffered permanent disability of his left leg.