STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SISHIR KUMAR MUKHERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Bihar arises out of a suit for compensation, in which a decree for Rs. 14,040/- has been awarded as compensation to the plaintiff-respondent and his wife.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 2,19,301/-. on account of fatal accident met by his son, Raghu Nath Mukharji, due to wrongful act and utter negligence on behalf of the appellant, under whom he was employed as an Assistant Engineer. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for his own benefit as also for the benefit of Sulekha Mukherji, widow of the deceased, and the minor daughter of the deceased, as also his own wife, the mother of the deceased, under Fatal Accidents Act. 1855 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The deceased, Raghunath Mukharji, was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Bihar and. at the relevant time, was posted in the Kosi Project and was working as Subdivisional Officer, Incharge of Vardah Quarry sub-division, under the Barrage Division of Birpur. It is the common case of the parties that the deceased, while returning from Birpur, where he had gone on the 25th June, 1960 to his headquarters at Vardah on the 26th June. 1960, died of drowning, as the boat of the Kosi Proiect Department, in which he was travelling capsized in the Kosi river. His dead body was recovered on the 28th June, 1960. The plaintiff's case is that the death of his son was due to the negligent act of officers of the defendant-appellant in the Kosi Project Department in not providing the boat with any life saying device and that the boat was also old and worn out. As the death of the plaintiff's son took place while he was in course of his employment and duty, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation from the State of Bihar. The plaintiff has averred that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing a total emolument of Rs. 481/- per month and was expected to be promoted as Executive Engineer by July, 1962, and as Superintending Engineer by July, 1972. On that basis, fifty per cent, of his total earning up to the period of his superannuation, has been claimed as compensation, as mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint, besides gratuity.