JAI SINGH Vs. MANSHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal by Shri Jai Singh is directed against a judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, whereby the claim put forward by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and two others under the Fatal Accidents Act for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was decreed for a sum of Rs. 7,680/- in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) Near Dehar Tehsil Sundernagar district Mandi, there is a suspension bridge on river Sutlej. On one side of the bridge is Bilaspur District and on the other Mandi district. Dehar is in district Mandi. The bridge was suspended on two galvanised iron ropes on each side. It was to be widened and one more galvanised rope was to be added on each side. The contract for the widening of the bridge and for repair work had been given to the appellant. In August, 1955, the bridge was under repairs. Mehanga Ram, hereinafter to be referred as 'the deceased', the son of respondents Nos. I and 2, was passing over the bridge from Bilaspur side at about 1 and 2 P. M. on 29-8-1955. All of a sudden the bridge tilted and he fell down in the river below. His body could not be traced and it is alleged that he breathed his last as a result of falling down. Respondent No. 1 is the father and respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased. They along with their daughters Shankutala and Sheela Devi filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as damages against the appellant, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Union of India respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the deceased was about 17 years old and was studying in 9th class at the time of the incident. He was stated to be a promising student and it was the intent of the family to educate him upto B. A. at least. The suit was filed in forma pauperis. Thakur Dass son of respondent No. 1 was impleaded as defendant No. 3 under the guardianship of Anant Ram his adoptive father. It was alleged that the aforesaid Anant Ram did not want Thakur Dass to figure as plaintiff and as such he was jmpleaded as defendant. It was further alleged in the plaint that the respondents were guilty of neglect of duty inasmuch as no board was put up cautioning the passersby not to cross the bridge and that the ropes had been loosened. A notice under Section 80 Civil P. C., was issued to the respondent No. 3.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the appellant and respondent No. 3. The former pleaded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitation and the notice sent to respondent No. 3 was not in accordance with law and the period of notice was not liable to be excluded in computing the prescribed period of limitation. It was denied that the deceased was the son of Mansha Ram respondent No. 1. His case was that respondent No. 2 was married to Panchi Ram and the deceased was born of that union, that the aforesaid lady was abducted by respondent No. 1 after the aforesaid marriage and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 or for the matter of that the other plaintiffs did not have a right to maintain the suit. It was also denied that the ropes of the bridge had been loosened or that there was any neglect of duty on the part of the appellant or any of the labourers employed in connection with the widening of the bridge. The tilting of the bridge was stated to be purely accidental. It was also denied that the deceased was a shining student or that any pecuniary loss had been occasioned as a result of his alleged death. The right of the plaintiffs to claim any sum as damages was repudiated and the amount claimed was stated to be excessive in any case.