SURJIT SINGH RAMGARIA Vs. SOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surjit Singh Ramgaria, defendant No. 2, has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Soma and his minor son Rinku) filed suit against the appellant and respondent No. 3, State of Punjab, for recovery of Rs. 20,00,000. It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 along with his father Gulzari, wife Satya, son Bittu, daughters Sona and Geeta and another son Rinku, plaintiff No. 2 was living in a temporary thatched hut near Octroi Post, Tanda Road, Dasuya, being nomads. Defendant No. 2, appellant, was running a tractor agency adjacent thereto. On 4.7.1995, defendant No. 2 raised a mud wall touching the edges of the hut of the plaintiffs in spite of protest by plaintiffs and their other family members. The said wall was raised up to height of 11 ft. by defendant No. 2 without sanction of building plan from the Municipal Committee. Plaintiffs and their family members told defendant No. 2 many times that the wall was dangerous, but the defendant No. 2 paid no heed and, in fact, defendant No. 2 wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs and their family members from the hut by making their lives dangerous in the hut on account of this wall. On the night between 4/5.7.1995, the aforesaid wall raised by defendant No. 2 fell down on account of rains and resultantly, Satya Devi, wife, Bittu, son and Sona and Geeta, daughters of plaintiff No. 1 were buried under the debris of the wall and died at the spot. The said occurrence took place due to rash and negligent acts of defendant No. 2. F.I.R. regarding the occurrence was registered against him under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). Satya Devi aged 35 years had good health and was doing skilled work of making domestic articles like chhaaj, jaali, etc. and used to contribute her income to the family. Similarly, Sona aged 17 years was doing the same work and contributed her income to the family. Bittu aged 13-14 years was working as cleaner in the Truck Union, whereas Geeta aged 6-7 years used to assist her mother in domestic and other works. On account of said deaths, plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000.

(3.) Defendant No. 1, State of Punjab, admitted the occurrence and also admitted that occurrence took place due to rash and negligent acts of Surjit Singh Ramgaria, defendant No. 2, regarding which F.I.R. was registered under Section 304-A, IPC against the defendant No. 2 and one Avtar Singh. It was also pleaded that compensation of Rs. 50,000 each was paid to next of kin of the deceased persons. Other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied.