DEVILAL S/O BHAGIRATH Vs. M P STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, both the appeals were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of F.A.No. 768/2000 are narrated hereunder.

(2.) It has also been mentioned in the judgment and decree that the defendants No.1 and 2 shall be free to take appropriate steps for grant of compensation from the State Government. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals by the plaintiff as well as by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) Mr. Suresh S. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant Devilal has vehemently argued before this Court that the child in question was a healthy child and belongs to a poor family. The family does not have sufficient financial resources and now the child is aged about 26 years and is a totally crippled person who is not able to walk and he can walk only with the help of all the four limbs. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towardsthe statement of plaintiff Bhagirath (PW 1), Narendra Singh (PW 2)and Hazari (PW 3) and the factum of administering the Polio drops has been established. The factum of the child getting infected on the next day on account of administering Polio drops is also admitted.