VIJAY KUMAR SOOD Vs. NEERAJ ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No. 4 has come in appeal against judgment, decree dated 24.5.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, (1) Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 3 -K/98, decreeing the suit of respondent No. 1 for Rs. 1,20,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of 26/5/2014 Page realization. In the appeal decree till 51 respondent No. 1 has filed cross -objections for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) THE pleaded case of respondent No. 1 is that appellant, a contractor, on 4.6.1997 at about 4 p.m. was demolishing through blasting a bridge at Draman on Pathankot -Mandi road under respondents No. 2 to 4, a flying splinter of stone hit the right eye of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was a student and very good in study and was merit holder. The respondent No. 1 got treatment at various places but due to injury he lost vision in the right eye which caused 30% permanent disability which adversely affected his future prospects in life. The respondent No. 1 suffered physical and mental agony due to loss of vision in one eye. The blasting was done in negligent manner and no intimation of blasting was given to the residents in that area. The blasting was being handled by unqualified persons who had no necessary skill to handle blasting. The respondent No. 1 served notice under Section 80 CPC and ultimately he filed suit for recovery of damages against respondents No. 2 to 4 and appellant. In the suit respondent No. 1 had claimed Rs. 50,000 Dev Dassi Versus United India Insurance Company Limited / - for loss of vision in right eye, Rs. 1,00,000/ - for loss of amenities in life, Rs. 3,25,000/ - for loss of earning capacity and Rs. 25,000/ - on account of medical expenses.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recover the suit amount in lieu of damage as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.? 1 to 3 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD -4 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD -4