PULLUR PERIYA PANCHAYAT Vs. KARTHIYAYINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth defendant-Panchayat in O. S. No. 141 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hosdrug is the appellant. THE plaintiffs filed the suit as indigents claiming damages against the defendants on account of the death of the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 as a result of the collapse of the Kumbala Bridge. THE appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court below mulcting the appellant - fourth defendant Panchayat with liability to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as damages.

(2.) FACTS: One Darkas Kottan (38 years of age at the time of his death) was the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the three minor plaintiffs. On 4. 6. 1991 at about 2. 15 P. M. . the first plaintiffs husband was on his way to his mother's house which is situated on the southern side of kumbala Bridge constructed on Parappally-Kallot P. W. D. Road. The first plaintiffs husband was crossing the bridge from its northern side on 4. 6. 1991 along with three others, and while they were so crossing, the bridge collapsed and as a result of the collapse, all the four persons including the first plaintiff s husband fell into the deep canal below causing the death of the husband of the first plaintiff due to drowning. According to the plaintiffs, the collapse took place due to the defective construction of the bridge by defendants 1 to 3 and also due to 1 ask of periodical inspection and proper maintenance by the fourth defendant. According to them, the deceased Darkas kottan, 38 years of age at the time of his death, was a skilled mason earning more than Rs. 60/- per day and on account of his un-timely death, the plaintiffs suffered great financial loss entitling them to damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. The plaintiffs had issued notice under S. 80 CPC and under S. 123 of the Kerala Panchayat Act to the defendants. However, the defendants caused reply notices to be sent to the plaintiffs repudiating their liability to pay any damages and hence the suit.

(3.) THE evidence in this case consists of Exts. Al to a7,b1,x-1 to X-3 and the oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and Dws. 1 and 2.