Delhi District Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2013
In the Court of Sh. Praveen Singh: Senior Civil Judgecum Rent
Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit. No. 81/06/02
Kuldeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Satyabir Singh,
R/o Village Issapur,
New Delhi. ....................... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Lt. Governor,
NCT of Delhi, Raj Niwas Marg,
Delhi.
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Works and Housing,
Nirman Bhawan,
Deptt. of CPWD, New Delhi.
3. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home North Block, New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Delhi Police,
Suit No.81/06/02 1 of 19
Police Head Quarter, ITO, New Delhi. ....................... Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.07.2000.
Date of Arguments: 31.05.2013.
Date of Judgment : 31.05.2013.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF RS.2,00,000/
JUDGMENT :
The present suit for recovery of damages of Rs.2,00,000/ has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is, that on 08.06.1998, he went to the office of DCP, 2nd battalion, P.S. Mukherjeet Nagar for submitting his form for the selection to the post of Constable in Delhi Police. When the plaintiff was standing in queue and was waiting for submitting his form, a crack wall (sic) of a height of about 15 feet suddenly collapsed on the plaintiff and several other candidates, who were standing in the queue. They received several injuries on various parts of their body. The plaintiff suffered fracture on his left leg and left hip and he became permanently disabled. He also received serious injuries on his head. The plaintiff was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital on the same day. Information was given to police vide DD No. 9A dated 08.06.1998. The plaintiff remained hospitalized upto 30.06.1998. Due to the aforesaid incident, the plaintiff could not appear for physical test and written test for the post of Suit No.81/06/02 2 of 19 constable in Delhi Police and but for the incident, the plaintiff could not be selected for the post of constable in Delhi Police. The plaintiff approached the Commissioner of Police on 04.08.1998 and asked him to take appropriate action against the officials of Delhi Police and information was also given to him by the DCP, 2nd battalion asking him to reappear for physical test and written examination but due to the incident, the plaintiff could not appear for the said test. The plaintiff spent about Rs.1,00,000/ on his treatment and on special diet and medicines. He also suffered mental agony. The loss estimate of the plaintiff totalled to around Rs.2,00,000/. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same from the defendants. A demand notice was also sent to the defendants and the same was served upon the defendants on 24.01.2000 but no reply was given by the defendants. Hence, the present suit.
3. On being served with the summons for settlement of issues, the defendant no. 4 filed its written statement. When the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 failed to appear despite service of summons, they were proceeded exparte by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 07.08.2000. Thereafter, on an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC on behalf of the defendant no. 1, the exparte order against the defendant no. 1 was set aside by my learned predecessor vide order dated 02.03.2001. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 filed its written statement.
4. The defendant no. 1 in its written statement took a preliminary Suit No.81/06/02 3 of 19 objection that the suit was time barred.
5. On merits, it was denied that the wall of 15 feet height had collapsed. It was submitted that the height of the wall was only 2 meters from the play ground side and one meter from the footpath side. It was further submitted that the wall was constructed with single brick work. It was further submitted that there was a heavy rush of candidates and their kith and kins and other visitors were also watching the selection procedure. It was further submitted that a huge crowd had climbed on the wall and hundred of persons were standing near the wall using wall as a support from the road side. The wall could not bear this extra burden and as a result some portion of the wall collapsed. It was due to the misuse of the wall and negligence of people that this incident occurred. It was submitted that the condition of the wall was satisfactory at that time and no complaint was lodged to PWD by the police department or anybody else for any crack or defect in the wall before occurrence of this incident. It was denied that the plaintiff had suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/. It was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the loss from the defendants and that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
6. The defendant no. 4 in its written statement took a preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was submitted that the defendant had taken all precautions and also deployed their officials to take all preventive measures Suit No.81/06/02 4 of 19 for collection of application forms for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. The wall had collapsed due to heavy pressure put upon the wall by the candidates. A further preliminary objection was taken that the plaintiff was not liable for any damages from the defendant as twice he had already been provided with an opportunity to appear in the physical test and written test. A further preliminary objection was taken that the plaintiff was not entitled for any damages as he had already given a statement before the Investigating Officer that he did not want any legal remedy. A further preliminary objection was taken that the suit was liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Limitation Act. A further preliminary objection was taken that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. It was submitted that the plaintiff had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1505/98 which was dismissed in limine on 11.08.1998.
7. On merits, it was submitted that on 08.06.1998, at about 9.45 A.M., a large number of candidates gathered on Parade Road, adjacent to the boundary of Sports Ground, New Police Lines, Delhi for submitting their forms. They were put in a queue and the police personnel was also deployed for duty outside the gate of Sports Ground. In order to get entry, some candidates pushed the wall and due to pressure, a small portion of the boundary wall which was about 7 feet high collapsed. In this incident, three persons including the plaintiff sustained injuries. They were taken to Hindu Suit No.81/06/02 5 of 19 Rao Hospital by the local police for medical treatment. Their statements were also recorded but none of them desired to initiate any legal action. It was further submitted that a demand notice dated 24.01.2000 was received by the defendant no. 4 on behalf of the plaintiff but his request was not accepted. The rest of the allegations of the plaintiff were denied.
8. In the replication to the written statements, the contents of the written statement are denied and the contents of the plaint are reaffirmed.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 23.01.2001:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD4
2. Whether there exists no cause of action against the defendant no. 4 ? OPD4.
3. Whether the wall in question was a cracked wall as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP.
4. Whether the wall in question collapsed due to pressure of the public? OPD1 and OPD4.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed of compensation? OPP.
6. Relief.
10. The issue no. 1 was treated as preliminary issue and the same was disposed of in favour of the plaintiff by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 28.05.2004. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence.
Suit No.81/06/02 6 of 19 The plaintiff examined himself as PW1, HC Rajender Singh as PW2, Sh. Pyara Singh as PW3 and Sh. K.V. Singh as PW4. On the other hand, the defendant no. 4 examined Sh. Suvashish Choudhary as D4W1.
11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record very carefully. My issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 2:Whether there exists no cause of action against the defendant no. 4 ?
12. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 4. The defendant examined D4W1 Sh. Suvashish Chaudhary. Appearing as D4W1, Sh. Chaudhary deposed that there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the plaintiff was not entitled to make any claim against the defendants because, there was no negligence on the part of the defendants as the defendants had taken all the precautions and had also deployed their officials to take all preventive measures for collection of application forms for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. He further deposed that the wall collapsed due to heavy pressure put upon the wall by the candidates who came to submit their application forms.
13. During his cross examination, he admitted that the plaintiff was hurt as the wall had fallen. He denied that the wall had fallen due to negligence of the police.
14. From the examination in chief of D4W1, it is very much clear that D4W1 states that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant Suit No.81/06/02 7 of 19 no. 4 and therefore, the claim against the defendant no. 4 does not lie. The facts even alleged by the plaintiff and which are admitted by the defendants are, that the plaintiff had applied for the post of constable as advertised by the defendant no. 4, he was asked to reach a particular place to submit the application form, a wall collapsed at that particular place and he was injured due to the same. According to the plaintiff, it was the negligence of the defendants which resulted in such an incident. Therefore, the cause of action is clearly disclosed. D4W1 has deposed that there was no cause of action against the defendant no. 4 as there was no negligence on the part of the defendant no. 4. Now, whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendant no. 4 or not, is a fact which has to be proved later on while deciding other issues. Mere an assertion of this sort cannot lead to a conclusion that there was no cause of action against the defendant no. 4. The issue no. 2 is accordingly decided against the defendant no. 4. ISSUES NO. 3 AND 4:(3)Whether the wall in question was a cracked wall as alleged by the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the wall in question collapsed due to pressure of the public?
15. The plaintiff appearing as PW1 deposed that when he was standing in a queue for submitting his form, a crack(sic) wall about 15 feet high suddenly fell down (collapsed) on him and on several other candidates who were standing in the queue.
16. During his cross examination, he admitted that because of the Suit No.81/06/02 8 of 19 pressure put by the candidates, who were pushing up each other, the wall collapsed. He denied that the wall was fine shaped and had no cracks and volunteered, that it was an old wall. He further denied that the wall collapsed due to the pressure put by the candidates and the visitors. He further deposed that due to collapse of wall, he suffered multiple injuries.
17. The plaintiff apart from his own testimony has not brought any other evidence to show that there was a crack in wall. That there were thousands of people who were pushing up each other and, the fact that the wall collapsed due to heavy pressure, are the facts which have been admitted by the plaintiff during his cross examination. Therefore, I find that the real fact which has emerged from the plaintiff's evidence is, that the wall collapsed due to pressure put on the wall by the candidates, who were large in number. The issue no. 3 and 4 are accordingly disposed of. ISSUE NO. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed of compensation?
The Evidence
18. The plaintiff appearing as PW1 deposed that on 08.06.1998, he went to the office of DCP, 2nd Battalion for submitting his form for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. When he was standing in a queue and was waiting for submitting his form, a crack(sic) wall about 15 feet high suddenly fell down/ collapsed on him and on several other candidates. He received fracture on his left leg, his hip and on his body and he became Suit No.81/06/02 9 of 19 permanently disabled person. He also received serious injuries on his head. He further deposed that on the same day, he was admitted to Hindu Rao Hospital. A police information was given by DD No. 9A dated 08.06.1998 and the police officials with their ambulance admitted him to Hindu Rao Hospital. He remained admitted in the hospital till 30.06.1998. The MLC No. 7014/98 is Ex.PW1/1 and the discharge slip is Ex.PW1/2. He further deposed that due to this incident, he could not appear in the written and physical test held for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. He also served a legal demand notice upon the defendant through registered post. The said notice was served upon the defendant on 24.01.2000. The said notice alongwith AD receipt are Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8. He further deposed that he had spent around Rs.1,00,000/ on his treatment, special diet and medicines etc. The medical bills are Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/21. He also suffered mental agony. In total, he had suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/ due to this incident. He further deposed that this incident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the defendants and it was the duty of the defendants to take care of the cracked wall.
19. During his cross examination, he admitted that the height of the boundary wall from the road side was about one meter and from the playground, it was about two meter and volunteered, that there was a railing on the boundary wall. He denied that there were outside people who were watching the proceedings of selection on the entire boundary wall. However, Suit No.81/06/02 10 of 19 he admitted that the candidates had lined up alongside the boundary wall for submitting forms. He admitted that there was a heavy rush of candidates appearing for the selection as constable in Delhi Police and they were all standing near the boundary wall. He admitted that the kith and kin of the candidates also came with the candidates. He denied that they were also standing near the boundary wall. At the time of incident, they were standing on the other side of the wall. At the time of incident, he was standing outside the playground alongwith other thousands of candidates. They were standing there for last about 4045 minutes. He denied that due to the pressure put by the candidates and visitors, the wall collapsed. He admitted that because of pressure put by the candidates who were pushing each other, the wall collapsed. He denied that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant no. 1. He denied that he was not entitled to any amount from the defendant no. 1. He denied that he had not spent Rs.1,00,000/ on treatment and volunteered, that there were hospital bills. He denied that he had not suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/ in total. He denied that the wall was fine shaped or that it had no cracks. He further deposed that on 08.06.1998, approximately 10 thousand candidates were present for submitting the form for selection of Constable in Delhi Police. He further deposed that the wall collapsed due to the heavy pressure of the candidates and due to the collapse of wall, he received multiple fracture on head and legs and he was admitted in hospital by the Delhi Police. He denied that the wall collapsed due to his Suit No.81/06/02 11 of 19 negligence. He further denied that the wall collapsed due to the negligence of the candidates.
20. PW3 Sh. Pyara Singh, Medical Record Supervisor, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital brought circular dated 29.04.2000 whereby the summoned record was destroyed.
21. During his cross examination, he deposed that he could not say whether the plaintiff was admitted in the hospital or whether any expenses were incurred by the plaintiff.
22. PW4 Sh. K.V. Singh, Medical Record clerk from Hindu Rao Hospital deposed that he had brought the original summoned record of injured Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Satbir Singh. He further deposed that Kuldeep Singh was admitted in the hospital on 08.06.1998 and was discharged on 30.06.1998.
23. During his cross examination, he deposed that the injured was admitted in Nursing Home. He could not say that how much expenses were incurred, though it was charged.
24. On the other hand, D4W1 Sh. Suvashish Choudhary deposed that there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. He further deposed that the defendant had taken all the precautions and had also deployed their officials to take all preventive measures for collection of application forms for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. He further deposed that the plaintiff was not liable for Suit No.81/06/02 12 of 19 damages from the defendants as he had already been provided two opportunities to appear in the physical measurement and endurance test. He further deposed that the plaintiff was not liable for any damages as the plaintiff had already given his statement to the IO that he did not want any legal remedy against the defendants. He further deposed that an advertisement to fill up 625 vacancies of constable in Delhi Police was published on 24.05.1998. The application forms of the candidates were to be accepted from 02.06.1998 to 10.06.1998 by the Delhi Police at Sports Ground, New Police Lines, Delhi and later on, due to 17 new police stations being created, these vacancies were increased from 625 to 2000. A sufficient number of police officials/ men had been deployed in and around the Sports Ground to maintain the law and order. On 08.06.1998, a large number of candidates gathered on Parade Road, adjacent to the boundary of the Sports Ground, New Police Line for depositing their application forms. They were put in queue by the police personnel. In order to get entry in the Sports Ground, some of the candidates pushed the boundary wall and due to the pressure, a small portion of the wall, which was about 7 feet high, collapsed. In this mishappening, three candidates including the plaintiff sustained injuries. Consequently, local police was called and a DD No. 9A was lodged at police station, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and the local police took the injured to the Hindu Rao Hospital. The police recorded the statements of all the three injured persons and none of them desired to initiate any legal Suit No.81/06/02 13 of 19 action in this matter.
25. During his cross examination, he admitted that the plaintiff was hurt as the wall had fallen. He denied that the wall had fallen due to the negligence of the police. He denied that there was no proper arrangement and control by the police to manage the candidates.
Findings
26. It has already been held that the wall had fallen due to the pressure from the public. Admittedly, the plaintiff sustained injuries and was admitted to the hospital. The case of the plaintiff was that it was the negligence of the defendants that led to the fall of the wall. According to the plaintiff, there was a crack in the wall due to which, the wall had fallen down. This assertion has not been found to be correct by the court. However, it has been found by the court that the wall had fallen due to the public pressure. It is admitted that on both the sides of the wall, there were around 10000 persons who were gathered there to submit their forms for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. It is also an admitted position that a large number of bystanders had also gathered around the wall. Therefore, it was expected that the police force should have been available in an adequate number to maintain an orderly conduct of the proceedings.
27. D4W1 has deposed that the defendant had taken all the precautions and had also deployed their officials to take all preventive measures for collection of application forms. He has also deposed that Suit No.81/06/02 14 of 19 sufficient number of police officials/ men had been deployed in an around and the Sports Ground to maintain law and order. In his cross examination, he denied that the wall had fallen due to the negligence of the defendant or that there was no proper arrangement and control by the police to maintain the candidates.
28. From the above evidence, it is very much clear that except by orally stating that enough arrangements had been made, the defendant no. 4 has not brought any evidence before the court to show what kind of arrangements had been made and what was the number of police personnel deployed to see that as many as 10000 persons conduct themselves in an orderly fashion. The evidence in this regard would have been well within the possession of the defendant no. 4 but for the reasons best known to it, the defendant no. 4 has not disclosed before the court that what arrangements were made and how these arrangements were implemented. On the contrary, the testimony of D4W1 ''that in order to get entry into the Sports ground, some of the candidates pushed the boundary wall and due to this pressure, a small portion of the wall had collapsed'', itself belies the stand of the defendant no. 4 that sufficient arrangements had been made to maintain law and order. Things do not happen all of a sudden. It could not have all of a sudden happened that a push might have come and the wall collapsed. These things start when a large group starts narrowing down to concentrate on a specific point. I find it hard to believe that had there been a queue and Suit No.81/06/02 15 of 19 people had been standing in queue, a push given by a single person could have generated a pressure to make a wall fall down. It is only possible when a large number of people gathered around a wall and it is a combined pressure of these people not on a particular point but at a considerable length of the wall which would have made the wall fall down. A more probable scenario emerges from the written statement of the defendant no. 1 that a huge crowd had climbed on the wall and a number of other persons were using the wall for support. The wall could not bear the burden and the misuse of the wall led to its fall. Therefore, in the present case, the things speaks for themselves. The situation on the ground is that around 10000 people had gathered at Sports Ground for submission of their forms for the post of Constable in Delhi Police and due to pressure by the public, the wall had fallen down. This clearly points towards the negligence of the defendant no. 4. It was the duty of the defendant no. 4 to make sufficient arrangements so that proceedings of submission of forms could have been conducted in an orderly manner and to see that the people had not crowded near the wall or climbed on it so as to endanger the life of the candidates. I, therefore, find that the wall had fallen due to the negligence of the defendant no. 4. Thus, the defendant no. 4 is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered.
29. I also find that the defendant no. 3, who is the controlling authority of the defendant no. 4, is jointly and severally liable alongwith the Suit No.81/06/02 16 of 19 defendant no. 4.
30. As regards the defendant no. 1, no clear role has been assigned to the defendant no. 1 and therefore, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi cannot be held liable for the said incident.
31. As regards the defendant no. 2, as it has already been found that there were no cracks in the wall, therefore, as there is no evidence before me to held that due to lack of maintenance, the said incident had happened; the defendant no. 2 cannot be held liable for the said incident.
32. I have to note here that the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 are Union of India but they have been sued through different departments. Therefore, keeping the departments in my mind, the defendants no. 1 and 2 have been found to be not liable.
33. Now, coming onto the quantum of the damages. There is no dispute to the fact that the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff deposed that after getting treatment from Hindu Rao Hospital, he also had treatment from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He further deposed that he spent Rs.1,00,000/ on his treatment. Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/21 (colly) are the prescriptions and the bills showing the money spent by the plaintiff on his treatment. There is no challenge to the genuineness of these bills. The plaintiff has claimed that he had spent Rs.1,00,000/ on his treatment. However, the bills only show the amount of Rs.41,929/ being spent by the plaintiff. There is another bill of Rs.400/ towards the fee of the doctor. There are five more bills of purchase Suit No.81/06/02 17 of 19 of medicines. The same are of Rs.465/, Rs.373/,Rs.359/, Rs.1562/ and Rs. 1800/ Therefore, the total amount spent by the plaintiff on his treatment comes to Rs.46,888/. I accordingly find that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 46,888/ towards actual damages.
34. The plaintiff has also claimed damages for pain and agony. The plaintiff appeared as PW1 and deposed that he was claiming Rs. 1,00,000/ towards pain and mental agony. During his cross examination, it was not even suggested to him that his amount of damages for pain and mental agony cannot be Rs.1,00,000/. Therefore, the testimony of the plaintiff that his damages for suffering pain and agony are assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/ has been unrebutted. Even otherwise, it was nowhere denied that the plaintiff remained hospitalized for a period of 22 days at Hindu Rao Hospital whereafter he was discharged. However, the fact that he had to further undergo treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital shows that he was not completely cured and he had to undergo an operation, which would have resulted in further pain and agony. The fact that the plaintiff was aspiring for government service and had lost the same also adds to the damages which he had suffered. Therefore, the prolonged treatment, the pain and agony suffered at the time of accident and while recovering, the loss of job opportunity and the future prospects, all these make me to reach at a conclusion that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ as claimed by the plaintiff can be said to be a very reasonable amount. I accordingly find that the plaintiff Suit No.81/06/02 18 of 19 is entitled to Rs.1,46,888/ towards the actual damages and damages for pain, agony and loss of job prospects. The issue is accordingly disposed of. RELIEF
35. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed against the defendants no. 3 and 4 and is dismissed qua the defendants no. 1 and 2. A decree of Rs.1,46,888/ alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 3 and 4. Costs of the suit are also awarded. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (PARVEEN SINGH) on 31.05.2013. Senior Civil Judge cum Rent (This judgment contains 19 pages Controller (Central), and each paper bears my signature.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Suit No.81/06/02 19 of 19