STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. U P ADKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State of Maharashtra and the Secretary of Public Works Department of Government of Maharashtra have preferred the present appeal for challenging the Judgment and decree dated 6 th may 2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nashik by which the appellants have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent nos. 1 to 6 who are the original plaintiffs. The appellants have been directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The compensation has been ordered and decreed to be paid as the State Government failed to maintain a public road in a proper condition which resulted in the accidental death of the husband of the first respondent. The State Government and the Cantonment Board have blamed each other for the accident.

(2.) The record of the suit was called for and the appellants were permitted to file paper book. The parties were put to notice that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal. The appeal arises out of a very unfortunate incident which took place on 10 th November 1995. One Mr.Pundalik (deceased husband of the respondent No.1) was plying his scooter on a road known as Lam Road, Nasik. He was proceeding towards his house from Nasik Road at about 10.30 p.m. When the said Pundalik reached near the Dastagir Dhaba Square on the Lam Road, there was a ditch dug across the road. The ditch was dug for the purpose of providing the water pipe line connection from the main pipeline which was on the right hand side of the road which proceeds from Nashik Road towards Deolali camp. The said ditch was of considerable depth and width. It is alleged that there was no indicator put on for warning the drivers of the vehicles that there was a ditch. Though the deceased was driving the vehicle very cautiously, he fell down in the said ditch. He sustained injuries to the head and other parts of the body. Unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries after he was admitted to a hospital. The death was due to shock caused by the head injury. The first respondent is the widow of the deceased. The second to fourth respondents are the minor children of the deceased and fifth and sixth respondents are the parents of the deceased. The appellants were impleaded as first and second defendants in the suit and the seventh respondent Cantonment Board has been impleaded as the third defendant.

(3.) The allegation in the plaint is that the road was vested in the appellants and therefore, it was the statutory duty and obligation of the appellants to maintain the road in proper and good condition. It is contended that there was neglect, default and wrongful omission on their part. It was contended that the water pipeline was owned and maintained by the 7 th Respondent-Cantonment Board. At the spot of accident, the main water line was on the right hand side of the road and the digging was made across the road for giving supply to the premises on the left hand side of the road through the main line on the right hand side. It was contended that even the Cantonment Board is guilty of negligence as it failed to maintain the portion of the road in proper condition.