DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CHEPAUK Vs. J UMASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 18. 02. 1999 passed in O. S. No. 794 of 1995 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in the suit, which is one for claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, consequent upon the injury sustained by him in his right eye could be portrayed thus: the plaintiff was selected by the defendants for Industrial Training of "forger and Heat" Trade (i. e. Blacksmith) at Industrial Training Institute, Salem-8. He joined the trade on 13. 08. 1991 and was taking training enthusiastically. On 30. 06. 1992, when the plaintiff and his batch mates were taking practical training at the "a" unit workshop, the Trade Master Karthikeyan, who was in charge of "b" unit was also in charge of "a" unit due to the absence of the Trade Master Teacher Rangasami in the A Unit. At about 11. 00 O' clock, the plaintiff was in the process of making "hallow and Flat tongs with the help of forge and blower as per the instructions and directions of the defendants subordinates. At that time, a thick hot silver of steel, flew from the adjacent student's work bench and pierced the right eye of the plaintiff inflicting and causing injury to the right eye pupil; whereupon, he was taken to the Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. From there, the plaintiff was taken to an Eye Specialist Dr. Siddartha of T. M. S. Eye Hospital. Despite best treatment given, the plaintiff's right eye lost its vision totally. Subsequently, he took treatment at Madurai Aravind Eye Hospital to prevent further damage to his one other eye. Basic safe guards for the eye by providing eye glasses and other precautionary equipments were not extended to the plaintiff; wherefore only he sustained eye injury and consequent loss of eye sight. Accordingly, he prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs from the defendants.

(3.) PER contra, gain saying and remonstrating, the allegations/averments in the plaint, the second defendant filed the written statement, the warp and woof of it would run thus: