EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. SANTHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 15/03/1994 of the IInd Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in OS No. 873 of 1992. As per the decree, an amount of Rs.24,000/- with 6% interest thereon from the date of suit till the date of realisation and proportionate costs have been awarded as damages to the first respondent for injuries suffered by her. The damages are awarded against the second defendant / Panchayat. The said second defendant is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The first respondent / plaintiff is a casual labourer. On 21/10/1991, at about 5.15 p.m., the plaintiff was returning home after work through the Thuthiyoor Palachuvadu Kalachal Padam. On her way, she had to cross the Kalachal thodu. For crossing the thodu, there is a foot bridge across the same which is constructed and maintained by the Panchayat for pedestrian traffic. While crossing the thodu, the concrete slab on the foot bridge collapsed, the plaintiff fell into the thodu and suffered injuries. Her ankle joint was crushed and she suffered a series of lacerated injuries over her body. She was initially taken to a nearby clinic where she was administered first aid and was later admitted to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, for treatment. The treatment is stated to be continuing even on the date of filing of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the foot bridge across the thodu belongs to the second defendant / Panchayat and the collapse of the foot bridge was due to its defective construction and improper maintenance. The Panchayat being the local authority had a duty to keep the foot bridge safe and in proper maintenance for the benefit of the commuters and the omission to do so amounted to gross negligence. Having failed to discharge their statutory duty, it was contended that the Panchayat was liable to compensate the plaintiff for the personal injuries suffered by her. It is further alleged that the plaintiff was earning an amount of Rs.50/- per day and was not in a position to resume work due to her disability and loss of earning capacity. According to her, she had spent an amount of Rs.5,000/- for treatment and medicine. She caused the issue of a notice, demanding an amount of Rs.8,500/- as damages from the defendants. But, there was no response. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages, the break up of which is contained in the plaint.

(3.) The first defendant, Chief Secretary, State of Kerala and the third defendant, the District Collector, Ernakulam remained ex parte. The suit was contested only by the second defendant / Panchayat. The second defendant disputed the incident itself and denied that there was any collapse of the foot bridge due to its negligence or any other act of omission or commission on its part. The Panchayat denied the allegation that the foot bridge was under the ownership and possession of the Panchayat. It also denied any liability to construct or maintain the foot bridge. The second defendant denied that the plaintiff had sustained any injury consequent to the accident. The second defendant disputed all liability to pay the amount that was claimed as damages in the suit.