UNION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 1964, of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2 Jaipur City.

(2.) SMT. Krishna Kumari the plaintiff in the suit is the wife of Zabar Singh, an Upper Division Clerk of the Accountant General's Office, Rajasthan who was allotted quarter No. G88 in Bajajnagar, Jaipur, for his residence in August, 1960. Thi9 quarter belonged to the Union of India and was constructed and completed by the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, of the Union of India. Plaintiff was living in this quarter with her husband. The work of electricity fittings in the main line was done by the Electricity Board, Rajasthan, whereas the internal fittings in the quarters were done by the employees of the Union of India. There was a loose earth wire, the one end of which was placed in the swich board in the quarter and the other one was left lying on the ground outside the quarter on the public street. Plaintiff's case is that on 30th January, 1961, while she came out of the quarter to collect some sand in a plate, her palm of the left hand came into contact with the earth wire lying on the public street outside the quarter. The wire clung to her palm and she received a severe electric shock, became unconscious and was unable to speak. On seeing her in that condition, some people collected there and at first their attempt to detach the wire from the palm with the help of a piece of cloth failed but later on it was detached with the help of a bamboo stick As a result of the shock it is alleged her legs and hand had twisted and even after the medical treatment for 15 days. She kept on feeling pain in the hand and legs and there was swelling on them, and blisters on the left hand. It is further alleged that on account of this shock she gets recurring pain in her fingers and palm of the left hand and also recurring pain in the body specially on the left side during cold weather and due to cold breeze she gets pain and swelling in the left hand, she cannot left loads and cannot lift even a slight weight, she is unable to do any hard work with her left hand, often gets swelling with pain on the left part of the body particularly in the palm and hand and her memory and power of concentra-tion have been impaired, and in apits of medical treatment for a long time she has not fully recovered. Her inability to attend to the household work is a constant source of mental pain and suffering in addition to the physical pain and suffering, It is alleged that the Union of India is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees who did not connect the earth wire with the electrode and left it lying loose on the public street She has, therefore, claimed Rs, 1000/- as special damages for the expenses which she had to incur in taking rich diet as part of the medical treatment and her salary to a servant for six months when she was unable to look after the household work. The has further claimed Rs 2000/- as damages due to mental suffering and pain suffered at the time of shock and thereafter, Rs. 4000/- for the disabilities that she had suffered and which in the present state of health appeared to be permanent, Rs. 3100/- for the shortened expectancy of life on account of that suffering. Although the suit was instituted besides the Union of India against Shri R. S. Jain, Executive Engineer, Central Division, Ajmer and Shri Roshanlal, Assistant Engineer. Jaipur Sub Division, C. P. W. D. Jaipur, but the lower court dismissed the suit against the other defendants and passed a decree against the Union of India only.

(3.) THOUGH the quantum of damages to which a plaintiff is entitled depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the matters which should be taken into account are pain and suffering endured past, present and future (2) inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life sustained, past, present and future and injury to health (3) and a shortened expectation of life. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Ganpathi vs. State of Madras (2), Bombay S. R. T. Corporation vs. Narayan (3) while on behalf of the respondent, reference is made to G & N. I. T. Co. vs. Dinkar Joshi[4], State of Madras vs. James [5] and Kota Transport Ltd. Jhalawar T. Service[6].