ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL Vs. C. HANUMANTHA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted for recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1815. The Union of India, in the Ministry of Defence, the second defendant, had entrusted, on contract basis, the construction of a Parachute Factory at Avadi with Messrs. Engineers International, the first defendant, a partnership firm. One Lachi Raju, an Engineer under the service of the Union of India as Superintendent, Grade I, was at the place of construction and discharging certain duties. On 7th March, 1963, the first defendant firm was erecting trusses with the help of its employees. 13 trusses were hoisted temporarily before they were to be permanently fixed up. A derrick (a contrivance for moving or hoisting heavy weights) fell on one of the trusses, with the result that all the trusses fell down. One of the trusses fell on Lachi Raju causing serious injuries. He was removed to the Military Hospital, Avadi and given treatment. But he expired within half an hour. This suit was instituted by his parents (plaintiffs 1 and 2), his widow (third plaintiff) and children (plaintiffs 4 and 5) to recover a sum of Rs. 65,000 as damages mad up of Rs. 5,000 to each of plaintiffs 1 and 2, Rs. 10,000 to each of plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 and Rs. 25,000 claimed as pecuniary loss suffered by the estate on account of the death of Lachi Raju. The plaintiffs inter alia alleged that the cause of the accident was due to the negligence of the employees of the 1st defendant and on account of the failure to take proper and sufficient safety precautions in the process of erecting trusses. They alleged that Lachi Raju was very affectionate and loving towards his parents, wife and children, that on account of the premature death, they were deprived of the help which they were receiving from him and that also the estate had lost pecuniary on account of the premature death.

(2.) THE first defendant contended that there was no cause of action against it, as Lachi Raju was not under its employ and that it was also not a part of the work of Lachi Raju to be present at the spot of accident. It was also contended that there was no negligence on the part of the first defendant or its employees in the execution of the work and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any damages. The first defendant contested the correctness of the quantum of the damages also.

(3.) THE trial Judge found that the first defendant was an independent contractor and that the second defendant, Union of India, was not liable. It was also found that at the time of the accident, Lachi Raju was on duty in connection with some work that was in progress at the place of accident. As regards the cause of the accident, the finding of the trial Judge was that it was due to the negligence on the part of the first defendant. On the question as to the persons entitled to damages, the trial Judge found that plaintiffs 1 and 2, being parents, are not entitled to any relief. The trial Judge examined the evidence with regard to the income which the deceased was getting by way of salary, the amount which he was spending upon his wife and children and the probable savings which he would have made, had he lived his normal span of life, and taking all these circumstances into consideration, the trial Judge fixed a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages payable to each of the third plaintiff, the widow, and the fifth plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 9,000 to the fourth plaintiff. The trial Judge further award d a sum of Rs. 5,000 as loss to the estate, and in all a decree for Rs. 34,000 was passed with proportionate costs against the first defendant contractor. It is against this decree that the first defendant has preferred this appeal. Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 have filed a Memo. of Cross -objections contending that the Court below should have awarded to them an additional sum of Rs. 21,000 even though it disallowed the claims of plaintiffs 1 and 2.