Judgment :- 1. A.S.No.320 of 2004 has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002 in O.S.No.51 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. 2. A.S.No.322 of 2004 has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002 in O.S.No.37 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. A.S.No.320 of 2004: 3. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and available documentary evidence on record, while passing the judgment in O.S.No.51 of 2002 on 31.10.2002, has among other things observed that 'the appellant/plaintiff has sustained the permanent disability of 49.8% and for his permanent disability granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards the plaintiff's attendant expenses and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant/plaintiff together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and also with costs'. Further, it directed the first respondent/first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and passed a decree to that effect. Moreover, three months time has been granted to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment. 4. Before the trial Court, in the main suit in O.S.No.51 of 2002, three issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 have been marked. Also, Ex.X.1 to X.5 have been marked as Court Exhibits. 5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff as an aggrieved person, has projected the present appeal in A.S.No.320 of 2004, claiming enhancement of compensation. 6. The points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the respondents/defendants are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse of the entire roof of the Copy Section building on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m? 6. The points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the respondents/defendants are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse of the entire roof of the Copy Section building on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m? (ii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the respondents/defendants for the injuries sustained by him? A.S.No.322 of 2004: 7. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and available documentary evidence on record, while passing the judgment in O.S.No.37 of 2002 on 31.10.2002, has inter alia observed that 'the appellant/plaintiff has sustained the permanent disability of 68.8% for which, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards the plaintiff's attendant expenses, and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant/plaintiff together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and also with costs'. Further, it directed the first respondent/first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and passed a decree to that effect. Also, three months time has been granted to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment. 8. Before the trial Court, in the main suit in O.S.No.37 of 2002, three issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 have been marked. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 have been marked. Also, Ex.X.1 to X.5 have been marked as Court exhibits. 9. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff as an aggrieved person, has projected the present appeal in A.S.No.322 of 2004, claiming enhancement of compensation. 10. The points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the respondents/defendants are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse of the entire roof of the Copy Section building on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m? 10. The points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the respondents/defendants are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse of the entire roof of the Copy Section building on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m? (ii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the respondents/defendants for the injuries sustained by him? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings in Point No.(i) in A.S.Nos.320 and 322 of 2004: 11. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that on 27.02.1998, the appellants/plaintiffs were working as a Junior Clerk and as a Copyist in the Copy Section of the Additional District Court, Karaikal and at about 04.45 p.m, on that day, when the plaintiffs were discharging their duties, they heard a thundering noise and within a minute, the entire roof of the Copy Section of the building constructed with long wooden logs and mud and bricks, fell down on the entire body of the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs raised an alarm for a moment and that they lost their consciousness as they were suffocated and trapped under the debris and the collapsed ruins. 12. Added further, the other employees of the Judicial Department on hearing the alarm, rushed to the place of incident and they noticed the murmuring sounds coming below the ruins and they found the appellants/plaintiffs in a pool of blood living as dead bodies and with their efforts, the appellants/plaintiffs were dragged out them from the debris. After sending message to the Hospital and Superior Officers, the appellants/plaintiffs were taken to the General Hospital, Karaikal where they were admitted as inpatients, etc. 13. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, the third respondent/Chief Engineer, P.W.D, Pondicherry, has a duty to take care of the District Court building which is under his control and he ought to take reasonable care including to avoid any act or omission and exercise all ordinary care and caution which is expected from a prudent person. The District Court building is a Centenary old building and cracks were found in several part of the roofs of the building and during rainy seasons, the entire roof of the building leaked and as a result thereof, the rain water gathered in the building including in the District Court hall. The District Court building is a Centenary old building and cracks were found in several part of the roofs of the building and during rainy seasons, the entire roof of the building leaked and as a result thereof, the rain water gathered in the building including in the District Court hall. The Head of Office of Judicial Department brought these facts to the knowledge of the respondents/defendants and it is also a fact that the respondents/defendants has been asked to carry out effective renovative works. But, inspite of the repeated demands made to the respondents/defendants, they have not taken action. 14. Continuing further, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the third respondent/third defendant, the Chief Engineer, P.W.D, Pondicherry, visited and inspected the building only after the collapse of a portion of the building namely, the Copy Section and started to carry out the renovation works. If timely action has been taken in carrying out the repair/renovation works, the incident of collapse of a portion of the District Court building could have been avoided and the appellants/plaintiffs would not have sustained serious injuries. 15. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that the respondents/defendants 1 to 4 owed a legal duty with a reasonable foreseeability of the consequences from the prevailing/existing condition of the building and the omission to do a legal duty also amounts to a gross negligence by the conduct and act of the respondents/ defendants. Because of their negligence, a portion of the building collapsed and consequently, the appellants/ plaintiffs sustained the injuries and therefore, each of the appellants/plaintiffs claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). 16. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents/ defendants submits that the building housing the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Pondicherry at Karaikal is about 120 years old with Madras Terrace Roofing and the Public Works Department has attended to the repair works in the said building. 16. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents/ defendants submits that the building housing the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Pondicherry at Karaikal is about 120 years old with Madras Terrace Roofing and the Public Works Department has attended to the repair works in the said building. Furthermore, during the inspections by the P.W.D. Engineer, it was found that the cracks were developed in the building and during rainy season, the rain waters were leaking through the cracks during heavy rains at times dislocating the Court works and the Public Works Department at Karaikal had prepared an estimate at a cost of Rs.8.85 lakhs for roof conversion and the same was sent for sanction to the Departments concerned and as such, the charge of negligence and carelessness, etc. are recklessly made against the defendants. 17. The learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that the Public Works Department in its earlier inspection of the Court building, has assessed the condition of the building with reference to the damage to the building and after such inspection, the Department informed the Court authority to attend to such repairs, but the Court authority has not attended to the small works as there is no separate Head of Account for Judicial Department in order to carry out the day-to-day maintenance, renovation of the building etc. That apart, the request of the Public Works Department, Karaikal, has been received by the then District and Sessions Judge, who informed the State Government in a letter dated 24.11.1997 for obtaining a separate Head of Account in that regard. 18. The core contention advanced on behalf of the respondents/defendants is that the collapse of the portion of the roof of the building prior to sanction was purely an accident and it can only be described as Act of God for which the Department cannot be made liable much less liable. 19. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 to 4 brings it to the notice of this Court that the appellants/plaintiffs who being the victims of the roof collapse were admitted in the Hospital and given expert treatment in Tamil Nadu Hospital after they were being referred to from the local Government Hospital, Karaikal. 19. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 to 4 brings it to the notice of this Court that the appellants/plaintiffs who being the victims of the roof collapse were admitted in the Hospital and given expert treatment in Tamil Nadu Hospital after they were being referred to from the local Government Hospital, Karaikal. Indeed, the State Government has met all the medical expenses at very heavy costs and the appellants/ plaintiffs have been able to join their duties during the month of August 1998. In any event, the claim of compensation by the appellants/plaintiffs at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each, is an excessive and unjust one. 20. On behalf of the first respondent/first defendant, the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 have been projected before this Court. 21. It is the evidence of P.W.1 (appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002) that when he has been serving as a Junior Clerk on 27.02.1998 in the Copy Section of the District Court building at about 04.40 p.m, the building collapsed and on that day, he has been working with his colleague Rajendran (Copyist) working in the same section (appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2002) and when he has been discharging his duty, he heard the thundering noise and that the entire roof of the building collapsed and fell down on him and the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004. 22. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that he was under the rubbles of the roof and fell unconscious and suffocated. Also, he along with the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004 raised an alarm and they were trapped below the debris and hearing the thundering sound, the other Court staff members rushed to the place of incident and removed the debris. 23. Proceeding further, the evidence of P.W.1 is that they have been taken to the General Hospital, Karaikal and admitted as an inpatient etc. 23. Proceeding further, the evidence of P.W.1 is that they have been taken to the General Hospital, Karaikal and admitted as an inpatient etc. The evidence of P.W.1 (appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004) goes to the effect that the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 are holding full in-charge of the maintenance of the District Court, Karaikal and since the building was centenary old, there were cracks over the entire buildings and he came to know that the Head of Office of the Judicial Department brought to the knowledge of the respondents 2 and 3 repeatedly and asked them to carry out effective renovation works, but the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 had not taken care of the demands. 24. Apart from the above, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the repair works of the building have commenced only after it got collapsed and if timely action has been taken to carry out the renovation work, the building could not have collapsed and he would not have sustained the injuries. He sustained injuries because of the negligent act of the respondents 2 and 3. 25. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion that the collapse of the Court premises was due to the Act of God and on that score, the respondents/ defendants are not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries and disability that they had sustained and suffered. 26. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2002), is on the same line as that of P.W.1 in O.S.No.51 of 2002 as regards the collapse of the entire roof of the District Court building which fell on him and Oman (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002). Also, the evidence of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004) is to the effect that the respondents/defendants have not taken care to carry out the effective renovation and repair works and that the repair works of the building started only after the building collapsed. 27. Also, the evidence of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004) is to the effect that the respondents/defendants have not taken care to carry out the effective renovation and repair works and that the repair works of the building started only after the building collapsed. 27. P.W.2 (former Head Sarishtadar of the District Court, Karaikal) in his evidence, has stated that the Court building was centenary old building and originally, the roof of the building was constructed with Madras Terrace Tiles and that the entire Court building including maintenance supervision and periodical repairs over the building are under the control of the Public Works Department, Karaikal and during the period of incident when the building collapsed, he was serving as Head Sarishtadar of the District Court, Karaikal and on 27.02.1998 at about 04.30 p.m, the southern portion of the District Court building where Copy Section was functioning, fell down on two employees (the appellants in both the appeals) who were working in the Copy Section. 28. P.W.2, in his evidence further proceeds to depose that the roof of the building of the District Court was bad and in a dangerous condition for the past eight years before the occurrence and that in the roof of the building, there were cracks etc, as a result of which rain water was leaking during the rainy season and rain waters gathered in the District Court building in the Court premises and at that time, the proceedings of the Court were also disturbed. 29. P.W.2, also adds in his evidence that the Head of Office of the District Court repeatedly sent letters (Exs.X.1 to X.5) to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Karaikal, stating that due to bad condition and damages of the rafters and beams supporting the roof of the building worn out in certain places causing leakage of water from the roof and inspite of repeated representations made by the Head of Office in writing to the Public Works Department, Karaikal, they had not taken any steps to carry out the repairs and renovation works. Even during the year 1997, some Public Works Department officials, Karaikal, visited and inspected the building and even then, they have not come forward to carry out the renovative work immediately and failed to take measures for preserving the safety of the building. Even during the year 1997, some Public Works Department officials, Karaikal, visited and inspected the building and even then, they have not come forward to carry out the renovative work immediately and failed to take measures for preserving the safety of the building. Only after the incident that took place on 27.02.1998, the Officers of the Public Works Department, Karaikal, visited the Court complex, inspected and started to carry out the renovation work. 30. The evidence of P.W.2 in effect is to the effect that the Public Works Department, Karaikal, came forward to carry out the repair works only after the collapse of the southern portion of the building and if they had taken measures to carry out the repairs over the roof of the building in time, then the collapse of the roof of the southern portion of the Court building would have been avoided and the appellants/plaintiffs would not have sustained the injuries. P.W.2 in his cross-examination, has categorically denied the suggestion that the Public Works Department people were meticulous in maintaining the building in sound stage and inspected the building in several times and did attend to the small works of repair and further that the collapse of a portion of the building was due to an Act of God and beyond the control of the Engineers of the Public Works Department. 31. Apart from the above, the evidence of P.W.2 (former Head Sarishtadar of the District Court, Karaikal) in O.S.No.37 of 2002 is to the effect that the incident occurred on 27.02.1998 at about 04.30 p.m and at that time, he was on duty as Head Sarishtadar of the District Court, Karaikal and the southern portion of the District Court building where Copy Section was functioning, fell down on two employees (the appellants in both the appeals) who were working in the Copy Section and that if the Public Works Department, Karaikal had undertaken measures to carry out the repairs over the roof the building in time, then the collapse of the southern portion of the District Court building would have been averted and further to Court staff members of the District Court would not have sustained the injuries. 32. 32. D.W.1, (Junior Engineer of Public Works Department), in his evidence has deposed that Karaikal Court building is under the maintenance of the Public Works Department Buildings Section and that the suit Court building is very ancient and old one which is aged about 100 years and that on being informed from the Court that the Court building is in a damaged condition and during the rainy period, from the roof rain water is leaking, P.W.D Engineers inspected the suit Court building and for changing the Madras Terrace roof into R.C.C roof, they had prepared an expenditure estimate of Rs.8.85 lakhs and sent it to the Pondicherry Government through its Public Works Department and on 15.12.1997 itself, the expenditure Estimate Amount has been sent to the Pondicherry Government and Ex.B.1 dated 24.11.1997, is the copy of the expenditure estimate and for carrying out the temporary repair expenditure in Courts since there is no separate Head of Account for obtaining the said Head of Account. Also, the Judicial Officer has written to the Government and the copy of the said letter is Ex.B.2 and before the sanction of the expenditure estimate as asked by them, the incident had taken place and as such, the appellants/plaintiffs have been affected and it is not true to state that they have failed to maintain the Court building properly and that they have been negligent and lackadaisical in maintaining the building. Further, the incident has occurred naturally for which they were not responsible. 33. D.W.1 in his cross-examination, has stated that it is false to state that for the letters written continuously from the year 1992, because of the negligence of the Public Works Department, they have not inspected the Court building and even during the year 1997, when the Executive Engineer, Natarajan, has inspected the Court building, no explanation has been offered in regard to the dangerous condition of the building, etc. 34. Moreover, the evidence of D.W.1 adduced in O.S.No.51 of 2002 (in A.S.No.320 of 2004) before the trial Court is similar to that of the evidence tendered in O.S.No.37 of 2002 and hence, the same is not repeated. 35. It is to be noted that negligence may be defined as unreasonable conduct i.e. conduct which a reasonable man would avoid on the ground that it involves undue risk of harm to another. 35. It is to be noted that negligence may be defined as unreasonable conduct i.e. conduct which a reasonable man would avoid on the ground that it involves undue risk of harm to another. The well-known jurist Austin says that 'negligence is a faulty mental condition which is penalised by the award of damages.' Indeed, the law enjoins on all individuals the duty to exercise the care, skill and foresight of reasonable man or an average individual of competence and prudence. 36. Negligence is defined in the decision in Blyth v. Brimingham Waterworks Co., reported in (1856) 11 Ex 781, where Baron Alderson has defined 'negligence' as the omission which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which he would not do. The expression 'reasonable foresight' in the situation of existence of duty of care will bear a different meaning from that expression indicated as a test for remoteness of damage. 37. At this stage, this Court worth recalls the decision in C Czarnikow Ltd. v.Koufos reported in (1969) 1 AC 350, at page 385, wherein it is observed that 'the defendant will be liable for any type of damage which is reasonably foreseeable as liable to happen even in the most unusual case, unless the risk is so small that a reasonable man would in the whole circumstances feel justified in neglecting it. The mere fact that the damage suffered was unlikely to occur may not relieve the defendant of liability if his conduct was illegal or unreasonable.' 38. The liability for negligence is based on a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the defendant must pay and it is a departure from this principle if his liability is made to depend on the damage being a 'direct' or 'natural' consequence of his act. Further, negligence is a principle of civil liability that a man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. A court of law has to decide not a mere question of foreseeability of the damage but the defendant's responsibility for it. The degree of fault or moral culpability of the wrongdoer is an important element in the decision, in the considered opinion of this Court. A court of law has to decide not a mere question of foreseeability of the damage but the defendant's responsibility for it. The degree of fault or moral culpability of the wrongdoer is an important element in the decision, in the considered opinion of this Court. In the law of Torts, for negligence, proof of actual damage is an essential ingredient as regards the cause of action. 39. A perusal of Ex.X.1, letter dated 18.11.1992 addressed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal to the Executive Engineer (fourth respondent), Public Works Department, Karaikal, points out that 'the roofs and beams supporting the roof of the District Court building were worn out in certain places causing thereby leakage from the roof and that a request has been made for inspection of the building and for taking necessary earlier action for repairs.' 40. Ex.X.2, is the letter dated 13.12.1993 addressed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, to the Executive Engineer, Building Division, P.W.D, Karaikal, (fourth respondent) in and by which it is informed that 'the District Court building which was leaking badly during rainy season, has been completely leaking due to the recent cyclone and therefore, a request has been made for taking necessary steps at the earliest to repair the roof of the District Court building.' 41. A reading of Ex.X.3, the letter dated 11.11.1994 addressed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, to the Executive Engineer (fourth respondent), points out that 'Karaikal region is experiencing heavy rain for the past 10 days and as a result of this, the roof of the District Court building which was leaking during the rainy season, has started now completely causing hardship and inconvenience to the staff members, the lawyers and the litigant public, etc. and in spite of his earlier office letter dated 13.12.1993 in office letter No.457/Estt.ADSJ/KKL/93, no steps seem to have been taken to repair the roof of the District Court building, Karaikal. Further, a request has been made for taking necessary steps expeditiously to repair the roof of the District Court building, Karaikal.' 42. and in spite of his earlier office letter dated 13.12.1993 in office letter No.457/Estt.ADSJ/KKL/93, no steps seem to have been taken to repair the roof of the District Court building, Karaikal. Further, a request has been made for taking necessary steps expeditiously to repair the roof of the District Court building, Karaikal.' 42. In Ex.X.4, the letter dated 01.07.1996 addressed by the Head of Office, Karaikal Courts, to the Executive Engineer, Karaikal (fourth respondent), it is among other things mentioned that 'in many part of the District Court Building roof is leaking during rainy season and particularly the rafters in the ceiling of the District Court building (southern wing) are in such a bad condition that they are likely to cave in at any time posing threat to the safety of the staff members and further cracks have also developed on many parts of the ceiling of the said building and a request has been made for taking immediate steps to repair the building at the earliest possible.' 43. In Ex.X.5, the letter dated 31.10.1997, addressed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, to the Executive Engineer, (fourth respondent), it is among other things mentioned that 'the District Court Building including the District Court hall, Karaikal requires renovation and repair works as cracks have developed in some parts of the said Court building causing leakage of water and paint colour fading and hence, a request has been made for making a visit to the Court building to have an assessment on its condition for doing renovation works.' 44. Ex.B.1, is the I.D.Note of the Executive Engineer (B&R), P.W.D., Karaikal, (the fourth respondent), addressed to the Superintending Engineer-I, along with the enclosures mentioned therein, which pertains to the submission of the detailed estimate for which an expenditure sanction has been requested and the said Note runs as follows: "The detailed estimate for Rs8,85,000/- for the above work is submitted for obtaining expenditure sanction. 2. The details and necessity of the estimate are explained in the report accompanying the estimate. 3. The estimate is prepared based on the request of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal (Copy of the letter is enclosed). 4. This estimate is prepared based on the Pondicherry Schedule of rates for Karaikal region for the year 1997-98. A provision of Rs.1,04,235/- for rewiring is also made in this estimate. 3. The estimate is prepared based on the request of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal (Copy of the letter is enclosed). 4. This estimate is prepared based on the Pondicherry Schedule of rates for Karaikal region for the year 1997-98. A provision of Rs.1,04,235/- for rewiring is also made in this estimate. This provision was made as per the estimate prepared by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Karaikal. 5. For such works under PLAN, no separate head of account is available and the Judge has also recently written in this connection. Even during the current rains the building was leaking and the estimate is hence prepared. Suitable sanction under any PLAN head may be obtained. If not feasible, may be sanctioned under Non-PLAN. 6. It is requested that necessary expenditure sanction may kindly be obtained and communicated to this office fro taking further action. Approval of the Government to draw an amount of Rs.1,04,235/- in advance to deposit the same with Electricity Department may also be obtained. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(b&r) P.W.D. KARAIKAL Encl: 1) Estimate in quadruplicate 2) Check List 3) Report-Tamil version SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER-I" 45. At this juncture, it is useful for this Court to refer to Ex.A.7, the Official Memorandum of the Honourable High Court in ROC.79-A/98/Pondy. dated 12.03.1998, wherein it is mentioned that with reference to the letters cited, the Chief Judge, Pondicherry and the Additional District Judge, Karaikal, have been instructed as follows: "1. They should submit immediate proposal for undertaking new construction of the Court complex Building at Karaikal after discussion with concerned officials. 2. To render all assistance to the injured persons including hospitalisation. 3. The injured persons be suggested to submit application through the Additional District Judge, Karaikal for compensation to the Pondicherry Government and such application be forwarded to the State Government with necessary recommendation by the Chief Judge/Addl. District Judge, Karaikal. 4. To send circular to all the Courts in the Union Territory of Pondicherry to send soundness/stability of the Court Buildings under the control of respective Presiding Officers and necessary certificate from PWD be directed to be obtained; 5. Whenever the Building is unsound/weak/very old, proposal be submitted by Chief Judge, Pondicherry/Addl. District Judge, Karaikal, for putting-up reconstruction of new constructions of Court Complex under the Central Scheme, and 6. The Addl. Whenever the Building is unsound/weak/very old, proposal be submitted by Chief Judge, Pondicherry/Addl. District Judge, Karaikal, for putting-up reconstruction of new constructions of Court Complex under the Central Scheme, and 6. The Addl. District Judge, Karaikal is to arrange or fix-up suitable accommodation or alternate space in consultation with local Government Officials/ PWD Engineers." 46. Further, this Court worth recalls the leading decision in Scott v. London and St.Katherine Docks Company reported in (1865) 3 H&C 596, while delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, Sir William Erle C.J, observed that 'There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management, used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.' 47. The Law of Negligence is of duty to take care as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jay Lakshmi Salt Works (P) Ltd., v. State of Gujarat reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. 48. This Court aptly points out the illustrative passage in CLERK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS (Sixteenth Edition) pages 568-569, which runs as follows: "Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence is, as pointed out, that he should establish his case by preponderance of probabilities. This he will normally have to do by proving that the other party acted carelessly. Such evidence is not always forthcoming. It is possible, however, in certain cases for him to reply on the mere fact that something happened as affording prima facie evidence of want of due care on the other's part: 'res ipsa loquitur is a principle which helps him to do so'. In effect, therefore, reliance on it is a confession by the plaintiff that he has no affirmative evidence of negligence. The classic statement of the circumstances in which he is able to do so is by Erle C.J: 'There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. In effect, therefore, reliance on it is a confession by the plaintiff that he has no affirmative evidence of negligence. The classic statement of the circumstances in which he is able to do so is by Erle C.J: 'There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in he absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care'. It is no more than a rule of evidence and states no principle of law. "This convenient and succinct formula", said Morris L.J., "possesses no magic qualities; nor has it any added virtue, other than that of brevity, merely because it is expressed in Latin. "It is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which a plaintiff proves a case so as to call for rebuttal from the defendant, without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant. He merely proves a result, not any particular act or omission producing the result. The Court hears only the plaintiff's side of the story, and if this makes it more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the doctrine res ipsa loqitur is said to apply, and the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed unless the defendant by evidence rebuts that probability. It is not necessary for res ipsa loquitur to be specifically pleaded." 49. It is not necessary for res ipsa loquitur to be specifically pleaded." 49. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 in both the appellants/plaintiffs/injured victims clearly shows the factum of crumbling and collapsing of the entire roof of the Copy Section of the District Court building at Karaikal, because of the fact that the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 have not attended to the renovative and repair works in a timely manner and the respondents 2 to 4 have not taken due diligent care in maintaining the District Court building at Karaikal and in carrying out the repairs and also obtaining the administrative sanction in time and it affords reasonable evidence to show that the incident on 27.02.1998, is a classic case of Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which will squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the considered opinion of this Court. 50. The crumbling and collapsing of the entire roof of the Copy Section of the District Court building goes to show that the appellants/plaintiffs have proved the factum and the result of the incident. The set of circumstances as to the manner and mode of occurrence as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the appellants/ plaintiffs/injured victims/Court staff members, unerringly points out that it is a clear case of Negligence. 51. As far as the present case is concerned, in spite of Exs.X.1 to X.3 and X.5, the letters dated 18.11.1992, 13.12.1993, 11.11.1994 and 31.10.1997 addressed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Karaikal, and also Ex.X.4, the letter addressed by the Head of Office, Karaikal Courts, Karaikal to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Karaikal, no steps have been taken by the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 for carrying out necessary repairs and renovation works of the roof of the District Court building, Karaikal, notwithstanding the fact that the hardship and inconvenience experienced by the other staff members, the lawyers and the litigant public have been brought to the notice of the fourth respondent/fourth defendant (the Executive Engineer). 52. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 have not taken diligent action/step in carrying out necessary repairs and renovation works of the roof of the District Court building at Karaikal. 52. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 have not taken diligent action/step in carrying out necessary repairs and renovation works of the roof of the District Court building at Karaikal. By not taking swift and diligent action with God speed on war-footing, the entire roof of the Copy Section constructed with long wooden logs and mud bricks, fell on the unwary and innocent appellants/ plaintiffs (staff members) namely one Junior Clerk (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/the plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002) and another Copyist (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004/the plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2002) on 27.02.1998 at about 04.45 p.m. As such, the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 including the first respondent/first defendant who is vicariously liable for the act of the respondents 2 to 4, are liable for gross negligence on account of crumbling and collapse/caving in of the Entire Roof of the Copy Section and accordingly, Point No.(i) in both the appeals are so answered as against the respondents/defendants. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings in Point No.(ii) in A.S.Nos.320 and 322 of 2004: 53. The appellants/plaintiffs in both the appeals claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) each as compensation in the main suits filed by them. 54. The trial Court in respect of the appellant/ plaintiff (in O.S.No.51 of 2002), for the permanent disability of 49.8%, has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards the plaintiff's attendant expenses and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant/plaintiff together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and also with costs and directed the first respondent/first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and passed a decree to that effect. The trial Court also granted three months time to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment. 55. The trial Court also granted three months time to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment. 55. The trial Court in respect of the appellant/ plaintiff (in O.S.No.37 of 2002), for the permanent disability of 68.8% has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards the plaintiff's attendant expenses, and in all, awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant/plaintiff together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and also with costs and directed the first respondent/first defendant to pay the aforesaid amount jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and passed a decree to that effect. The trial Court also granted three months time to pay the compensation amount from the date of passing of the judgment. 56. It is the evidence of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002) that the entire roof of the District Court building collapsed and fell down on him and on Rajendran (appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004) and he along with Rajendran raised an alarm because they got trapped under the heap of debris and the other Court staff members on hearing the thundering sound, rushed to the place of occurrence and removed the debris and rescued them. Further, he has sustained several fractures on his left hip and right ankle of the leg and he and Rajendran were taken to the General Hospital, Karaikal and admitted as an inpatients and most of the bones in his leg have been fractured into pieces and that initial treatment was taken by him at Karaikal and later, he and Rajendran were shifted to Tamil Nadu Hospital, Chennai, where he along with Rajendran underwent to operations performed by Dr.Nandakumar and Dr.Sundaram. The metal plates have been fixed on two places in his leg where fractures have been sustained and that he has been discharged from the Hospital on 17.03.1998 with an advise to attend the hospital thrice in a month. 57. The metal plates have been fixed on two places in his leg where fractures have been sustained and that he has been discharged from the Hospital on 17.03.1998 with an advise to attend the hospital thrice in a month. 57. The evidence of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002) is to the effect that the medical expenses were incurred by the Government of Pondicherry on the instructions of the High Court, Madras. Inspite of the treatment, he was not able to move from the bed and he was confined in the bed and attended the calls of nature in the bed itself with the help of his wife and relatives. 58. P.W.1, in his evidence goes to add that even now he is suffering from acute pain while he is walking and he cannot even sit in the floor freely and even now, he is limping and attending the calls of nature and that he has spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for his wife and other relatives when they stayed at Madras while he was taking treatment. Also, P.W.1 requires money for future medical expenses when he removes the plates from the fractured bones which have been fixed at the time of operation and that the Ortho Doctor has opined that his disability is at 49.8% and further he requires at least Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for future medical expenses and that the respondents 2 and 3 are holding full in-charge of the maintenance of the District Court building at Karaikal and that apart, the periodical maintenance of the building is under the control of the third respondent. 59. It is relevant for this Court to point out that P.W.1 had actually claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation in his original plaint and later on, he has restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), because of the reason that he is not able to pay the Court fee for the entire claim of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) and as such, he has prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) together with interest at 12% p.a. 60. P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/ plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002) in his cross-examination, has deposed that all the medical expenses incurred in respect of the medical treatment given, have been borne by the Government of Pondicherry and after such treatment, he and his colleague Rajendran were able to attend the duty at Judicial Department in the month of September 1998. Added further, the State Government of Pondicherry has not claimed any reimbursement on the medical expenses and that his salary and Rajendran's salary have not been totally affected and that all the medical expenses incurred in respect of the medical treatment have been borne by the Government of Pondicherry. 61. Whereas P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2002) has deposed that he sustained several fractures on his leg, hip and on both hands and he along with Oman (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004) have been taken to the General Hospital, Karaikal and admitted as an inpatients and most of the bones in his leg and hands have been fractured into pieces and initial treatment was given at the General Hospital, Karaikal and they were shifted to Tamil Nadu Hospital, Chennai, where he and Oman (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004) underwent four operations performed by Dr.Nandakumar and Dr.Sundaram. Further, metal plates have been fixed on both legs and he was discharged from the Hospital on 17.03.1998 with an advise to attend the hospital thrice in a month. 62. P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2010) has also deposed in his evidence that during the period of treatment, he has undergone intolerable pain and sufferings and even now, he is suffering from ankle pain while he is walking and he could not even sit in the floor freely and he could only walk by limping and while attending to the natural calls, he is suffering from ankle pain and not able to ride a cycle. 63. 63. According to the evidence of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2010), the Ortho Doctor has assessed the total disability at 68.8% and he requires at least a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for future medical expenses and further, he has actually claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in the original plaint and restricted his claim to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) because has not been in a position to pay the Court fee and as such, he has prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) together with interest at 12% p.a. 64. P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2010) in his cross-examination, has candidly admitted that all the medical expenses incurred in respect of the medical treatment given to him and Oman (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2010) were borne by the State Government of Pondicherry and after such treatment, they were able to join duty in the Judicial Department in the month of August 1998 and that the State Government of Pondicherry has not claimed any reimbursement on the medical expenses and their salaries were totally unaffected. 65. It is to be noted that the object of awarding compensation is to place the injured or affected parties as far as possible in the same position as they were before the accident. The award of compensation ought not to be an excessive or unreasonable one or an deficient one or inadequate one, as opined by this Court. It is needless for this Court to point out that the assessment of the damages is never an exact science. It is to be remembered that the parties are not awarded with a view to levy a find on the defendants, but as a compensation to the plaintiffs. By awarding a reasonable, fair and just compensation to the affected parties, the plaintiffs can never sue again because this is only an occasion where they can claim adequate compensation and when they have not committed any wrongs, then a Court of law must take care to award a full and fair compensation for what they have suffered to the claimants, in the considered opinion of this Court. 66. The totality of human life is akin to beauty of sunrise or splendor of stars beyond the reach of monitory scale. 66. The totality of human life is akin to beauty of sunrise or splendor of stars beyond the reach of monitory scale. Lord Black Burn in (1880) 5 Appeal Cases at page 25, has observed as follows: "Where any injury is to be compensated by damages in getting some of money to be given, you should as nearly as possible get as that of money which will put the person who has been injured in the same position as he what have been in if he had not sustained the injury." 67. It is true that money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost, but the money cannot renew a feasible frame that has been battered or shattered as per Lord Morris in West v. Shephard reported in (1963) 2 All ER 625. 68. Ex.A.6, Physically Handicapped Certificate dated 19.09.1998 issued by Dr.T.Veeramuthu, Consultant Orthopaedician, to the P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004), among other things shows that the appellant/plaintiff is physically handicapped because of the injuries sustained by him in the incident taken place on 27.02.1998 and the total percentage of permanent partial disability has been assessed at 49.8%. 69. Likewise, Ex.A.7, in respect of P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004) issued by Dr.T.Veeramuthu, Consultant Orthopaedician, dated 25.05.1998, inter alia states that the appellant/plaintiff is a physically handicapped person because of the injuries sustained by him in the incident that has been taken place on 27.02.1998 and the total percentage of permanent partial disability has been assessed at 68.8%. 70. The learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the pecuniary damages must be assessed as (a) the actual expenses incurred (towards medical expenses) and (b) loss of income incurred by an individual as a result of his non-employment arising out of the incident/ accident and further, the non-pecuniary damages include the damages for mental agony and the damages for pain and sufferings, etc. 71. The learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.D.Hattangadi v. M/s.Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995(1) TAC 557, wherein it is observed as follows: "Held, broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant-(i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and sufferings, already suffered or likely to by suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 72. He also relies on the decision of this Court in Managing Director, M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukottai reported in 2009-5-L.W.737 wherein this Court enhanced the disability compensation from Rs.36,000/- (Rs.1,000/- per 1% disability) to Rs.72,000/- even in the absence of any appeal from the respondent/ claimant. 73. The learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs invites the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Raj Rani and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 654, wherein it is held that 'immediate future prospect though not relevant for computation of amount of compensation under Section 163-A, would be a relevant factor to be considered for determining annual income for computation of amount of compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.' 74. It is to be noted that the Governments concerned are under the obligation to provide adequate infrastructural facilities including building of more Court houses and renovating and repairing the existing buildings where the Courts are housed. 75. Further, this Court opines that if adequate and enough funds are allotted by the Government concerned, then it will not impede the act of providing infrastructural facilities to the Courts and Court buildings (i.e, in carrying out timely renovation/repair works) in our Justice Delivery System. 76. 75. Further, this Court opines that if adequate and enough funds are allotted by the Government concerned, then it will not impede the act of providing infrastructural facilities to the Courts and Court buildings (i.e, in carrying out timely renovation/repair works) in our Justice Delivery System. 76. It is to be borne in mind that a three tier namely (i) District Level, (ii) State Level and (iii) National Level has been constituted to look into the infrastructural requirements of subordinate judiciary (Court buildings and Quarters) as per the order dated 12.07.2010 and 19.07.2010 in I.A.No.2791 of 2010 in W.P(Civil).No.1022 of 1989 (All India Judges' Association v. Union of India.). 77. Recently, in a suo motu petition, this Court has constituted a Three Member Committee to consider and discuss the pending proposals and actual infrastructural requirements of the Courts in the State. A timely attention by the concerned is required to provide infrastrutural facilities to the Subordinate judiciary at the right point of time. 78. At this stage, this Court points out that the injured/victim is not supposed to make a fortune out of an unfortunate accident. The compensation to be awarded by a Court of law must be a true, fair and sensible one, but the award of a compensation by a Court of law should not be a fanciful bonanza or an extravaganza as the case may be. 79. In the present case on hand, for P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004), the trial Court for his permanent partial disability of 49.8% as assessed by the Doctor under Ex.A.6, Physically handicapped certificate, the compensation awarded by the trial Court at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is on the lower side, in the considered opinion of this Court. 80. This Court taking into account the factum of inflation, value of money and spiraling rise in prices of essential commodities, etc, at the time of the date of occurrence, i.e. on 27.02.1998, determines the compensation at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) for 1% disability and accordingly, for 49.8% permanent partial disability (rounded off to 50%), this Court awards a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) which is a fair, sensible and just one too. 81. 81. This Court is not altering the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the trial Court for P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004) for attendant expenses incurred by him in respect of his relatives who attended on him as the same is in order. 82. Though in the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff (in A.S.No.320 of 2004) has not claimed a particular sum of money under a particular head, yet towards extra nourishment and also towards global compensation, this Court in all awards a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 83. Thus, for the injuries sustained by P.W.1, this Court awards the total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) {Rs.75,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.25,000/-} (to which the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002 is entitled to receive from the respondents) which sum being a fair, equitable and reasonable one, is payable by the respondents/ defendants to the appellant in A.S.No.320 of 2004/ plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2002 together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till date of realisation along with proportionate costs. If the first respondent/first defendant on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, has already deposited the amount of compensation as ordered by the trial Court, then the first respondent/first defendant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation at Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till date of realisation with proportionate costs within a period of one months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 84. Likewise, for P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004), the trial Court for his permanent partial disability of 68.8% as assessed by the Doctor under Ex.A.7, Physically handicapped certificate, the compensation awarded by the trial Court at Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) is on the lower side, in the considered opinion of this Court. 85. 84. Likewise, for P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004), the trial Court for his permanent partial disability of 68.8% as assessed by the Doctor under Ex.A.7, Physically handicapped certificate, the compensation awarded by the trial Court at Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) is on the lower side, in the considered opinion of this Court. 85. Further, this Court taking into account the factum of inflation, value of money and spiraling rise of price of essential commodities, etc, at the time of the date of occurrence, i.e. on 27.02.1998, determines the compensation at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) for 1% disability and accordingly, for 68.8% permanent partial disability (rounded off to 70%), this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand only). 86. This Court is not altering the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the trial Court for P.W.1 (the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004) for attendant expenses incurred by him in respect of his relatives who attended on him. 87. Even though in the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff (in A.S.No.322 of 2004) has not claimed a particular sum of money under a particular head, yet towards extra nourishment and also towards global compensation, this Court in all awards a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 88. Thus, for the injuries suffered by P.W.1, this Court awards the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) {Rs.1,05,000/- + Rs.20,000/-+ Rs.25,000/-} (to which the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004/plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2002 is entitled to receive from the respondents) which sum being a fair, equitable and reasonable one, is payable by the respondents/ defendants to the appellant in A.S.No.322 of 2004/ plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2002 together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till date of realisation along with proportionate costs. If the first respondent/first defendant on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, has already deposited the amount of compensation as ordered by the trial Court, then the first respondent/first defendant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation at Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till date of realisation with proportionate costs within a period of one months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 89. Thus, Point No.(ii) in both the appeals are answered accordingly. A.S.No.320 of 2004: 90. In the result, A.S.No.320 of 2004 is allowed in part leaving the parties to bear their own costs and resultantly, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.51 of 2002 stand modified and the compensation awarded by the trial Court at Rs.90,000/-(Rupees Ninety Thousand only) is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) along with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till date of realisation. If the first respondent/first defendant on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, has already deposited the amount of compensation as ordered by the trial Court, then the first respondent/ first defendant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation at Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till date of realisation with proportionate costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A.S.No.322 of 2004: 91. In the result, A.S.No.322 of 2004 is allowed in part leaving the parties to bear their own costs and resultantly, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.37 of 2002 stand modified and the compensation awarded by the trial Court at Rs.1,10,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) along with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till date of realisation. If the first respondent/first defendant on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, has already deposited the amount of compensation as ordered by the trial Court, then the first respondent/first defendant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation at Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) jointly and severally for and on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the plaint till date of realisation with proportionate costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.