STATE OF KERALA Vs. KARTHIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala , the officials of irrigation Department and the District Collector, Ernakulam, who are defendants in O. S. No. 2 of 1985, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam.

(2.) THE said suit was filed by the mother of one T. K. Jaison, who died on 7-10-1982 in an accident at the Minor Lift Irrigation Pump house situated on the banks of Muvattupuzha river at Kadathy kare. Jaison was taking bath at about 1 PM near the pump house. On the western side of the pump house, there are stepping stones and people in and around the locality had free access to the steps and they used to take bath near the pump house. According to the plaintiff, at the time of occurrence, the pump operator started operating the pump without giving alarm or warning. Sri. Jaison was pulled with tremendous force towards the mouth of the pump and sustained grievous injuries and died. It was alleged in the plaint that inspite of the fact that the operation of the pump was dangerous to the public, especially those who take bath at the steps, no preventive measures were taken and that there was no fence in the area where the pump bouse was installed and no warning board was displayed anywhere giving caution to those taking bath near the pump house, that Jaison died as a result of the negligence and carelessness of defendants and that therefore the defendants 2 to 4 are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the premature death of her son. It was also alleged that since defendants 2 to 4 are employees under the first defendant, the 1st defendant is vicariously liable to compensate the plaintiff and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable to the case. THE deceased Jaison was aged 20 at the time of his death, and according to the plaintiff, be would have lived upto 80 years. She also alleged that be was conducting a bunk at Kadathy, very near to the ernakulam-Muvattupuzha train road, and from that business, be was earning an income of not less than Rs. 600/- per mensem. He was of a good physique and had studied upto S. S. L. C. and was contributing an amount of Rs. 200/- per mensem towards maintenance and welfare of the plaintiff and was saving Rs. 50- per mensem. Notice was sent to the defendants but no reply was sent to the same. She also averred that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid after the incident, which was quite inadequate. She limited her claim to Rs. 48,000/- as compensation.

(3.) IN this appeal, the learned Government Pleader raised three points: (1) There is no negligence on the part of the defendants and the incident took place as a result of the carelessness and negligence of deceased jaison, (2) Even assuming that there was negligence on the part of the officials, the State was not liable to pay compensation; and (3) the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive.