Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 102 (BOM)

AMMUKUTTY AMMA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

1995-02-15

M.L.PENDSE, N.D.VYAS

body1995
JUDGMENT : N.D. Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 27.1.1983 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, in a suit filed by the appellant. The trial court has passed a decree for Rs. 50,000/- against respondent No. 2-2nd defendant and did not pass any decree against respondent No. 1-1st defendant. The claim of the appellant in the suit was for the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree the present appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff. 2. The appellant is the mother of one P. Krishnadas, the deceased, who was employed in the Artillery Centre at Nasik which is controlled by the Ministry of Defence of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 was the Training Instructor in 6/2 Training Regiment Topkhana Centre which formed part of the said Artillery Centre. The deceased as a candidate was recruited in the military service and like other candidates was posted at the said centre for receiving necessary training. The deceased was recruited on 9.8.1978 and had completed training for 139 days. It was the case of the appellant that on 14.12.1978, the respondent No. 2 assaulted the deceased on account of which assault the deceased complained of chest pain and pain in the legs. The deceased was thus sent for necessary treatment. However, on 15.12.1978 the complaint of the deceased continued and he was examined by doctors who kept him under observations and ultimately as the pain did not subside, the deceased was admitted to the Military Hospital, Deolali, on 16.12.1978 for further treatment. The condition of the deceased became serious on 16th and he was kept on the dangerous ill list. However, the deceased expired on 25.12.1978. The death certificate shows that he died on account of fracture of sternum and ribs and also due to other causes. The respondent No. 1 after investigation took proceedings against the respondent No. 2 who was ultimately dismissed from service. The present suit was filed by the appellant claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The death certificate shows that he died on account of fracture of sternum and ribs and also due to other causes. The respondent No. 1 after investigation took proceedings against the respondent No. 2 who was ultimately dismissed from service. The present suit was filed by the appellant claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The gravamen of the charge was that it was the respondent No. 2 who had assaulted and caused the death of the deceased and as the respondent No. 2 was in the employment of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 was equally liable as it was the duty of respondent No. 1 to have taken proper care to avoid such an incident. 3. On behalf of the respondent No. 1, written statement was filed and it was, inter alia, alleged that the respondent No. 1 was not liable for the acts committed by the respondent No. 2 during his employment as these acts were illegal acts. The respondent No. 1 also denied all other allegations. The respondent No. 2 also filed the written statement and, inter alia, denied his liability and also denied the fact that he had assaulted the deceased. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court raised several issues. One of the issues was whether the appellant proved that the respondent No. 1 was liable for the acts committed by the respondent No. 2 during his employment. The other issues were whether the appellant proved that the death of the deceased was caused by the assault committed on him by the respondent No. 2. On behalf of the appellant, her husband gave evidence and he deposed that at the time of death the deceased was only 19 years of age and was contributing Rs. 200/- to the family. No oral evidence or any documentary evidence was led by the respondents. The trial court came to the conclusion that although the respondent No. 2 was responsible for the assault and death of the deceased, the respondent No. 1 could not be held liable for acts committed by the respondent No. 2 who was in the employment of the respondent No. 1. While answering the issue, the trial court also came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages payable only by the respondent No. 2. Hence the present appeal. While answering the issue, the trial court also came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages payable only by the respondent No. 2. Hence the present appeal. 4. Mr. V.S. Khemka, learned Counsel appearing before us, submitted that the trial court was in error in absolving the respondent No. 1 of its liability for the acts of assault committed by the respondent No. 2. He submitted that the deceased was taking training in the establishment of the respondent No. 1 and admittedly the incident happened during such training on the premises of the respondent No. 1 at the hands of the respondent No. 2, an employee of the respondent No. 1. It was, therefore, his submission that the respondent No. 1 cannot be absolved of its liability. The learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , wherein it was, inter alia, held that State can be held liable for negligence of its officers. In view of this decision and on going through the facts, we find that the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased has been caused at the hands of the respondent No. 2 who had assaulted, however, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that both the respondents were responsible for the sad demise of the deceased and should be held liable for the damages. 5. That brings us to the question as to how much damages should be awarded in the present case. Here is the case of a young man of 19 years of age, at the threshold of his life who met with a sudden and tragic death without any fault on his part. There is no material on record to show that any weapon or any object was used in the assault. However, the very fact that the deceased had received injuries which had resulted in the fracture of sternum and several ribs, leaves no doubt in our mind that the assault committed by the respondent No. 2 must be of a very serious nature. To hold respondent No. 2 alone liable for such an act would be wrong. At the time of the sudden demise the deceased was contributing about Rs. 200/- per month. To hold respondent No. 2 alone liable for such an act would be wrong. At the time of the sudden demise the deceased was contributing about Rs. 200/- per month. The appellant and her husband both are aged today and must have looked upon the future career of the deceased. In our opinion, the future dependency would have been at least of Rs. 400/- per month as after completing the course the deceased would have been normally employed at a much higher salary. Taking into consideration all other factors, namely, the possible marriage of the deceased and having his own family a conservative figure of Rs. 400/- per month as future dependency, in our view, should serve the purpose. This would give the annual future dependency of Rs. 4,800/-. The next question would be as to what would be the proper multiplier to be used in such a case. Although normally the multiplier of 15 is used in such cases but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially a very young age of the deceased and the manner in which he had met his death we feel that multiplier of 15 would be inadequate and that an adequate multiplier should be 20. Thus, using 20 as the multiplier the future dependency would come to Rs. 96,000/- which, in our view, would be just and proper compensation to be awarded to the appellant by way of damages. We are not at all happy with the finding given by the trial court when it came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was not liable. We are also not happy with the amount of damages arrived at by the trial court. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is set aside and the following decree is substituted. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 96,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. The appellant would be entitled to the proportionate costs in both the courts.