SHIVKOR MOTASING SMT Vs. RAMNARESH MUNSISING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 15000.00 under the following circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are the teachers in a Municipal School where one Jagpalsing son of the plaintiffs was studying Defendant No. 2 is the Head Master of the School. Defendant No. 4 is Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation which runs the school. Jagpalsing a boy of about 12 years of age was one amongst the sixty who constituted the picnic party. On 6th September 1966 the picnic party of these young urchins was taken by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to Bhadreshwar situate on the bank of river Sabarmati in the outskirts of the city of Ahmedabad. The party reached the picnic spot at about 9-30. A. M. It appears that after the party reached there the picnic party took food. Thereafter defendants Nos. 1 and 3 who were in charge of the picnic party had been taking their food. At about 11-30 A.M. when defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had been taking food they heard noise from the river side and they rushed there. Two boys who were in the river water were rescued by a fisherman Mahavir Raghu and his companions. The two boys who had swallowed river water and who had therefore developed disorder in their physical systems reported that Jagpalsing was still in the water. Mahavir Raghu and his companions were requested by defendants Nos. 1 and j to find out Jagpalsing Mahavir Raghu and his companies thereafter jumped into the water swam in the water and found out the dead body of Jagpalsing. The plaintiffs alleged that Jagpalsing was drowned and killed on account of the negligence shown by defendants No. 1 and 3. They therefore instituted the present action in torts against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 15000.00 for damages.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 the rather of Jaspalsing died during the pendency of this appeal. His name was ordered to be struck off by this Court on 5 October 1973. The omission to bring his heirs on record is not fatal to the appeal because the appeal can proceed at the instance of plaintiff No. 2 the mother of Jagpalsing.

(3.) It was contended in defence that defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had given instructions to the boys not to go to the river side and that there fore they had discharged their duty towards those whom they had taken to Bhadreshwar for picnic.