VARGHESE O Vs. MUKUND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.92 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No.18/86 whereby the suit was decreed against defendants Nos.1 and 2 holding them to be jointly and severally liable for payment of Rs.51,037-10 Ps. with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the pauper application i.e. 19.3.84 till the day of full realisation of suit amount and with cost of the suit.

(2.) The Plaintiff in whose favour the Special Civil Suit was decreed as above has preferred this Appeal before this Court with the grievance that he was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,53,000.00- but the suit has been decreed only partly.

(3.) The plaintiff i.e. the appellant herein was employed with the respondent No.1 Mukund Construction Co., defendant No.2 being the Insurer. The plaintiff had filed the Special Civil Suit with allegations that he had joined the job of the Company as a turner on 30.4.83 at the rate of Rs.16.00- per day. The plaintiff requested that he may be made permanent. The defendant - Company did not make him permanent, that the plaintiff was entitled to bonus of 20% per year and 10% H.R.A. and other benefits which generally accrue to the permanent employees. It was alleged that while the plaintiff was working in the defendant - Company on the lathe machine on 28.6.83 a piece of iron from the lathe machine penetrated into his left eye and his eye was injured. The plaintiff got the treatment at Mahemdabad, Nadiad and Ahmedabad but the vision of his left eye was not restored.It was further alleged that the defendant Company failed to provide precautionary measures and preventive tools to the employees, more particularly to the plaintiff being a turner working on lathe machine and, therefore, it was because of the negligence of the defendant - Company that the accident occurred in which plaintiff's left eye was lost. His case was that it was a case of loss of vision of his left eye forever. The plaintiff asked for financial help from the defendant Company for Rs.1000.00- but the defendant paid Rs.500.00. When the plaintiff asked for more help considering the treatment and nature of injury to his left eye and loss of vision, defendant did not help. The plaintiff got treatment as indoor patient in the Hospital from 30.6.83 to 28.7.83 and 8.8.83 to 27.9.83. He had to bear the expenses for his treatment, medicine, operation, conveyance and for special diet etc. The plaintiff alleged that he had undergone a debt to the tune of Rs.25,000.00- for this purpose and interest over this amount. He had not been able to re-pay the debt as defendant - Company failed to help him. It was also alleged that the plaintiff belongs to Kerala and his family members are residing at Kerala, plaintiff is the eldest son and he had the liability to maintain his family. Because of the injury and disability sustained by the plaintiff, his career and future prospects were adversely affected. The defendant Company also terminated the services of the plaintiff and because of the termination he was rendered jobless and he and his family members had to face starvation. A Certificate was given by the Medical Officer of Nagri Hospital that the plaintiff had suffered disability to the tune of 30% because of the loss of vision in the left eye and this fact was very well known to the defendant Company. The plaintiff pleaded the case of negligence against the defendant - Company in not providing precautionary measures and preventive tools and it was also pleaded that the defendant No.2 as an insurer was liable to pay the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of Rs.2,53,000.00- under different heads as under:-