AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present appellants, who were the original defendants No. 2 and 3 and present respondent no.1 was the original plaintiff as well as respondent no.2
was the original defendant no.1 before the trial Court, who are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.
Present appellants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Bharuch in
Special Civil Suit No. 291 of 1993 dated 3rd May 1999, have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Codeâ€).
Short facts of the present case would be referred as under:
The plaintiff filed a suit through his power of attorney, as he was injured in an accident and had received injuries on his spinal cord and was bedridden.
As per the averments made in the plaint, the administration of the defendant no.1 was made by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Vaddala and the Sarpanch.
That, defendant no.1 was working under the supervision of the defendants No.2 and 3 and was connected with the administration. That, defendants
were covered under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. That, the defendants No.2 and 3 are liable for committing any act made by the
defendant no.1. It is further averred that on 14th June 1992, the plaintiff and Shri Ratansinh Harisinh were engaged by defendant no.1 for construction
work of a well nearby the lake of village Vaddala fixing remuneration of Rs. 75/- per day. Before six to seven days from starting the work ie., on 14th
June 1992, on the outer side of the well, the construction work of a well was continued. Well was constructed up to 9 feet in height, but no plaster was
covered over the well. On 14th June 1992, plaintiff and another person namely Ratansinh were engaged in a Masonry work of the well at the bottom.
While working inside of the well, no safety care of the person engaged in the Masonry work was taken by the defendant no.1. That, material used by
the defendant no.1 for construction work was not of standard quality. That, for construction of well, no technical opinion was received by the
defendant while working inside the well by the plaintiff and another person accompanied him. The wall of 9 feet in height suddenly collapsed in the
well, and therefor, the plaintiff and Ratansinh, who were working inside the well sustained grievous injuries on spinal cord and other parts of body.
This incident was occurred on account of sole negligency of the defendant no.1. Other worker namely Ratansinh was expired on account of severe
injuries sustained by him. The plaintiff treated at Ahmedabad, but did not cure himself after treatment.
He was completely bedridden and was unable to engage in any work. Constant attendance was required to him for routine process. Huge expenses
were made by him for his treatment. He was earning Rs. 75/- per day. He had lost his future income. On account of medical treatment, future loss
and income, pain, shock and suffering, it was requested to pass an award for compensation of Rs. 5 lacs holding liability of the defendants. The suit
was resisted by the defendants No.1 and 3 by filing their written statement vide Ex. 40 and 35. Both of the defendants have denied of engaging the
plaintiff in construction work of the Well as averred by the plaintiff on 14th June 1992. They denied presence of the plaintiff on the very same day,
when the accident of collapse of the Wall was occurred. They also denied construction of the Well as well as 9 feet height of wall. They have not
admitted that they have not taken any precaution or care for the persons working inside the well nor any technical opinion was received by them.
That, for construction work at village Vaddala Gram Panchayat, necessary proposal was made by the defendant no.2 on 9th April 1992 and was
forwarded to the Collector. That, under the chairmanship of the Collector, a meeting of Vagara Taluka Scarcity Committee was organized, wherein
the proposal was made for construction of the Well at village Vaddala. That, the estimate of Rs. 48,845/- for construction work of the Well was
produced. That, the supervision over the construction of the well was under Distribution Officer (Construction), Taluka Panchayat, Vagara of the
defendant no.1. That, measurement book or other record was also under the custody of the defendant no.1. Injuries as allegedly received by the
plaintiff during the course of work was denied. The work, treatment taken by him, expenses incurred by him as stated in his statement, suffering of
any pain, shock, inability in engaging any work or bedridden facts were not admitted by these defendants. As per their submissions, no construction
work of well was continued on 14th June 1992 and plaintiff was not engaged in labour work as averred by him, and therefore, suit was not
maintainable against them. That, due to previous enmity of the power of attorney of the plaintiff, as he was one of the accused in same case, false suit
was filed by the plaintiff. That, plaintiff himself was negligent, as he did not take necessary care while working, and therefore, incident was occurred.
That, no work order was given to the defendant no.1 by them and without getting prior permission, defendant no.1 started the work. That, no financial
or administrative approval was granted, therefore, no liability of defendants No.1 and 3 would be arisen to pay any compensation and hence, it was
requested by them to dismiss the suit.
Learned trial Judge, after considering the pleadings of the parties, was pleased to frame the issues vide Exh. 31, and thereafter, recording the evidence
of the either side and scrutinizing the same, learned trial judge was pleased to partly allowed the suit preferred by the plaintiff permitting him to
recover Rs. 2,75,000/- from all the defendants jointly/severally alognwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of pauper application till its
realization.
Another Special Civil Suit No. 50 of 1994 suit preferred by Ratanben Ratansinh Singha was also tried alongwith the suit preferred by the present
plaintiff and common judgment was passed on 3rd May 1992. Hence, this appeal.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Mithil J. Mehta for Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned adviocate for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Harshad J.
Shah for the respondent No.2.
Learned advocate for the appellants has mainly submitted that no administrative sanction was given by the District Collector and District Panchayat or
Taluka Panchayat and no procedure was followed by the defendant no.1, and hence, the defendants no.2 and 3 were not vicariously liable to pay any
compensation to the plaintiff. It was further submitted that administrative approval of the work in question was never granted by District Collector and
the defendant no.1 started construction work of the Well. If any wrong is committed by the defendant no.1, liability of the defendants no.2 and 3-
present appellants cannot be fixed by the Court. That, trial Court has not considered the evidence on record produced by the defendants No.2 and 3
particularly the oral evidence of the witnesses (Exh. 121 and 126) wherein it is specifically stated by Shri Pravinsinh Daulatsinh that no sanction was
given by the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat to Gram Panchayat and no supervision work was done by them. It is further argued that
necessary papers were forwarded to the office of the Collector by the District Panchayat, but no administrative sanction was granted by the Collector
for construction work of well. That, learned trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the suit by ignoring the evidence of defendants No.2 and
Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
by allowing this appeal.
From the otherside, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original plaintiff submitted that after considering the oral as well as documentary
evidence, trial Court has rightly awarded the compensation for the injuries caused to the plaintiff in an accident of collapsing the wall while he was
working inside the well at village Vaddala on 14th June 1992. That, on account of clear negligency as well as not taking any precaution or safety
measures by the defendants No.2 and 3, this incident of collapsing wall was made and plaintiff as well as other constructing person Ratansinh was
injured. That, plaintiff has led sufficient evidence by examining other witnesses, who were working with the plaintiff. That, technical opinion was given
by the Taluka Panchayat. That, in presence of the Collector in a meeting, it was decided to construct a well in Vaddala Gram Panchayat. Necessary
instructions were issued to the Taluka Development Officer and proposal was also forwarded. Estimates were also prepared by the concerned and
were sent for sanction. That, Collector was also present in the meeting of Scarcity committee held on 9th April 1992. After obtaining administrative
sanction, the defendants cannot deny their liability, as the construction of Well as previously started and the plaintiff was engaged as a labourer by
fixing remuneration of Rs. 75/- per day. That, both the defendants are rightly held liable to pay compensation considering the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff, treatment expenses incurred by him, pain and shock suffered by the plaintiff. No illegality was committed by the trial Court in awarding
compensation to the plaintiff. It was requested by learned advocate for the respondent No.1 to dismiss the appeal.
No arguments were advanced for and on behalf of the remaining respondents.
Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and record of the trial Court, only grievance raised by the present appellants was of not
granting sanction as well as approval by District Collector for construction of Well at Vaddala Gram Panchayat. No other issues were raised before
the court by the present appellants.
From the evidence, oral deposition of plaintiff as well as his witnesses, undisputedly, it appears that defendant no.1 had undertaken the work of
construction of Well after obtaining the sanction of the Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat. The construction work of the Well was also
supervised by Shri Kosamiya, Supervisor of the Taluka Panchayat. Undisputedly, Taluka Panchayat was working under the District Panchayat subject
to the control of the State Government and the competent authority. If we consider Section 6 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1993, Village Panchayat
shall be subordinate to the Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat subject to the control of the State Government and competent authority. If the
Gram Panchayat is subordinate to the Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat then in case of any liability over the Gram Panchayat, both the
defendants ie., defendants No. 2 and 3 can be held vicariously liable for the same.
It appears from the documents produced before the trial Court that technical sanction for construction of Well in the village Vaddala was given by the
Dy. Executive Engineer of Panchayat Sub Division ie., of Taluka Panchayat vide Exh. 75 and Exh. 106 as it was below Rs. 50,000/-. The witness has
also admitted himself of granting sanction of construction work. It also appears from the record that construction of the Well was also supervised
through Shri Kosamiya, Supervisor of the Taluka Panchayat, of course, this witness has denied in his examination-in-chief. From the document Exh.
134 which is tour diary from 01.12.1991 to 31.11.1993, it clearly transpires that at the relevant time, Shri Kosamiya had visited the village Vaddala for
the supervision work of the construction of Well. If we minutely examine tour diary, it appears that the same witness has tried to erase it, but from the
said tour diary, it is clearly proved that the said work was being supervised by him. Under the circumstances, the submission made by learned
advocate for the appellants that they cannot be vicariously liable to pay compensation cannot be accepted by this Court. For proving the injuries
caused to the plaintiff, he has produced numbers of medical papers, vouchers etc., He has also examined doctors, who have also supported the injuries
caused to the plaintiff before the Court. As no other averments made in the appeal by the appellants, they are not discussed by this Court.
From the facts and evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly partly allowed the suit preferred by the
plaintiff awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. There is no merits found by this Court in the present
appeal and accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No. 291 of 1993 dated 3rd May 1999 is
hereby confirmed.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court.