BHUPENDRAKUMAR KOHLI Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Who deserves greater sympathy the lowly paid workman of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (O. N. G. C.) who became blind in one eye whilst sweating for it or the O. N. G. C. itself who has become blind in both the eyes and is fighting tooth and nail with all the technical arguments at its disposal and legal talents at its command with the limitless public funds at its disposal ? Let alone being an ideal employer can one not expect the O. N. G. C. to be a fair and humane employer ? Should it prefer to spend thousands to pay to lawyers rather than to compensate its own employee who has sustained permanent loss of an eye in the course of winning oil and profits for the O. N. G. C. and for the Nation ? These questions come to the fore since a 30 year old Welder employed by the O. N. G. C. lost his right eye by reason of the fact that a piece of metal caused injury to his eye in the course of an operation undertaken by the patty of Drillers of which he was a member for retrieving a precious instrument known as well-head. It appears that when the pipe was being pulled by recourse to the tackle system by a tractor the holes in the pipe snapped and a piece of metal entered into the right eye of the Welder concerned who was at the site in connection with the retrieving operations. The incident occurred on 12/02/1974 The Welder concerned instituted a suit for recovering a total amount of Rs. 85 0 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. It was resisted on the ground that the O. N. G. C. or its officers who were at the site were not guilty of any negligence. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant or its officers were guilty of negligence. In this view of the matter the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. In the course of his judgment he recorded a finding that in case the O.N.G.C. could be held liable in damages he would the damages at the figure of Rs. 53 525 The unsuccessful plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present appeal

(2.) Two questions arise : (1) Whether it is established by the plaintiff that the 0. N. G. C. or its officers were guilty of negligence and (2) The quantum of damages.

(3.) So far as the first point is concerned it is the case of the plaintiff that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is attracted to the facts of this case and that the burden to establish than all proper safeguards and all appropriate precautions were taken rests on the shoulders of O. N. G C. It is furthermore contended that the 0. N. G. C. was guilty of negligence inasmuch as it had failed to provide for a safe method for carrying out the retrieving operations and in as much as it had failed to provide supervision by officers who had necessary expertise in the matter.