KAMAL THEATRE Vs. KASIREDDY VARLAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 179 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakha-patnam is the appellant. However, since the relief was not granted in toto as prayed for, the respondent-plaintiff also filed Cross-objections and hence both the matters are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation by way of damages from the defendant for the death of the plaintiff's minor son due to the stampede at the Kamal theatre, the defendant, while standing in the Queue for purchase of Rs. 2/- ticket on 28-5-1982. The suit was instituted as an indigent person. The main ground is that the plaintiff had lost her son only due to the negligence or default on the part of the defendant in maintaining the Queue properly at the aforesaid theatre. The allegations in the plaint are as follows :

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying all the allegations and the allegations made in the written statement of the defendant are as follows : The defendant's-theatre has been constructed very recently as per the conditions laid down in the 'Cinematograph Act' and the rules framed thereunder and that the Collector after having satisfied about the fulfilment of the conditions of the said Act in constructing the theatre, issued a licence and as such the allegations in the plaint that the defendant has not left any space in between the queues of ninty paise and two rupee and left only a negligible space between them are all false and incorrect. The space in between the said queues have been left as per the specifications approved by the Govt. under the "Cinematograph Act" and as such there is no negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendant for providing the space in between the said two queues of 90 paise and two rupees. The defendant's people never introduced any one into the said queues. In fact the defendant has taken the help of the A.P. Reserve Constable to control the people who come to the theatre to see the picture and the defendant has taken all possible and necessary precautions to avoid any clash at the ticket queues. The fall of the plaintiff's-son is only due to some collusion between the people who gathered for tickets. The defendant learned that there was a collusion in the queues among the people who gathered for purchasing the tickets which results the plaintiff's-son and some other people fell down and the plaintiff's-son was immediately taken away to the hospital in the ambulance and he was admitted in the hospital for treatment. There is no person by name Dhanakaraju working in the defendant's-theatre either on the date of the accident or at any time and the said Dhanakaraju who is alleged to have admitted the plaintiff's-son into the hospital is not known to the defendant. Either the defendant or its staff are not at all responsible for the unconsciousness of the plaintiff's-son on 28-5-1982 and the plaintiff's-son and the other people in the queue are only responsible for the said collusion which resulted the unconsciousness of the plaintiff's son. The defendant or his staff are no way responsible for the death of the plaintiff'-son. The defendant has taken all precautions for the maintenance of the queues, who come to purchase the tickets to the defendant-theatre, for which the defendant with a view to help the people, taken the help of the reserve constables besides his staff and thereby discharged all their legitimate duties to avoid any collision amongst the people, who come to the theatre and thereby the defendant is no way responsible for the alleged injuries obtained the plaintiff's-son and also his death. Immediately after the son of the plaintiff fell down, he was taken to the hospital in the ambulance and there as no delay in taking the boy to an hospital after the incident. The defendant is no way responsible for the injuries and the death of the plaintiff's-son and that the defendant has not committed any wrongful act, neglect as well as default as alleged in the plaint and thereby the defendant is not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is put to strict proof that she is the legal representative of the deceased boy as the defendant is not admitting the same. As the defendant or their staff are not at all responsible for the alleged injuries obtained by the plaintiff's-son and also his death, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff by way of damages or compensation much less a sum of Rupees 1,00,000/- as claimed in the plaint and at any rate the said claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- is excessive, arbitrary and without any basis whatsoever. A suitable reply notice, dt. 2-8-1982 has been sent by the defendant to the registered lawyer's notice, dt. 23-7-1982 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant."