PILLUTLA SAVITRI Vs. GOGINENI KAMALENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. First plaintiff is the widow, plaintiffs 2, 4 and 5 are the sons and the third plaintiff is the daughter of late P. Sitikanta Sastry who was a practising Advocate of Guntur. The suit was filed by them claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 by way of damages and compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by them due to the death of their family head Sri P. Sitikanta Sastry in a fatal accident on 5-5-1991 which allegedly occurred on account of the wrongful act, negligence and default of the defendants. Originally the suit was filed against the mother and father of the first respondent herein as defendants 1 and 2. As they died during the pendency of the suit, respondents 1 to 3 herein were brought on record as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit.

(2.) It is not in dispute that Sitikanta Sastry and his family members were in occupation of a portion on the ground floor of the building of the defendants as tenants. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5-5-1981 at about 8 P.M. while Sitikanta Sastry was relaxing in front of his residential portion lying on a cot, suddenly a portion of the first floor of the building which was under construction collapsed and the sun-shade and the parapet wall fell down on Sitikanta Sastry resulting in his death. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid construction was defective and it was made without any proper guidance, skill or supervision. The plaintiffs also came to know later that the construction was made without any sanctioned plan and permission from the Municipality. The defendants are thus guilty of causing the death of Sitikanta Sastry by the wrongful acts and negligence for which they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs. Sitikanta Sastry, besides being an active legal practitioner, was a highly influential and well connected person. He was legal adviser to several labour unions and he was also a labour leader, a good sportsman and a cricket player. He was also the Secretary of the Cricket Association. He was a man of high status in society and he belonged to a very affluent family. He was earning a minimum of Rs. 2,000.00 per month. He was aged only 55 years by the date of his death. By reason of his untimely death, the plaintiffs are put to great hardship and loss as he was the only earning member and head of the family. He was a healthy man and in the normal course he would have lived up to the age of 75 years. On the said allegations, the plaintiffs claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 towards damages and compensation. He was survived by his wife, four sons, four daughters and his aged mother. The suit was, however, filed by the wife, three sons and the unmarried daughter only on the ground that one son and three daughters were already married and the mother of the deceased was living separately and they were not, therefore, his dependants. It is, however, stated in the plaint that the suit is filed for their benefit also. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants (Ex. A.14) to which the second defendant sent a contentious reply (Ex. A. 15) denying liability. Hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants denying the alleged accident and asserting that Sitikanta Sastry died of natural causes only. It was pleaded that Sitikanta Sastry was aged more than 65 years and he was ailing and afflicted with blood pressure and cardiac trouble. He ceased to practise as Advocate and he had no income worth mentioning and that he was not in a position to pay the rent also regularly. The defendants also denied that the new construction made by them was defective and asserted that the second defendant was an A-Class contractor of the Public Works Department and that the construction was made according to standard specifications and by taking necessary precautions. It was also asserted that the construction was made only after submission of plans and approval by the Municipality. They also denied that there was any negligence on their part and disputed their liability. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any compensation as they did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Fatal Accidents Act and the suit was also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the other legal representatives of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the first defendant was not a necessary or proper party to the suit. The defendants also disputed the quantum of damages as being excessive and exaggerated. Finally it was pleaded that the plaintiffs were trying to make capital out of the death of Sitikanta Sastry who died of a natural cause only with an avowed object of gaining illegal benefit and that the plaintiffs' claim was not sustainable either in fact or at law.