Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is not in dispute that Sitikanta Sastry and his family members were in occupation of a portion on the ground floor of the building of the defendants as tenants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 5-5-1981 at about 8.00 p.m., while Sitikanta Sastry was relaxing in front of his residential portion lying on a cot, suddenly a portion of the first floor of the building which was under construction collapsed and the sunshade and the parapet wall fell down on Sitikanta Sastry resulting in his death. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid construction was defective and it was made without any proper guidance, skill or supervision. The plaintiffs also came to know later that the construction was made without any sanctioned plan and permission from the Municipality. The defendants are thus guilty of causing the death of Sitikanta Sastry by their wrongful acts and negligence for which they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs- Sitikanta Sastry, besides being an active legal practitioner, was a highly influential and well connected person. He was legal adviser to several labour unions and he was also a labour leader, a good sportsman and a cricket player. He was also the Secretary of the Cricket Association. He was a man of high status in society and he belonged to a very affluent family. He was earning a minimum of Rs.2,000.00 per month. He was aged only 55 years by the date of his death. By reason of his untimely death, the plaintiffs are put to great hardship and loss as he was the only earning member and head of the family. He was a healthy man and in the normal course he would have lived up to the age of 75 years. On the said allegations, the plaintiffs claimed a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages and compensation. He was survived by his wife, four sons, four daughters and his aged mother. The suit was, however, filed by the wife, three sons and the unmarried daughter only on the ground that one son and three daughters were already married and the mother of the deceased was living separately and they were not, therefore, his dependants. It is, however, stated in the plaint that the suit is filed for their benefit also. Before filing the suit, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the defendants (Ex.A14) to which the second defendant sent a contentious reply (Ex.A15) denying liability. Hence the suit.

11. PW2 is an alleged eye-witness to the occurrence. He hails from the same village as Sitikanta Sastry and used to live with Sitikanta Sastry and his family members in the same house while prosecuting his studies at Guntur. He deposed that on 5-5-1981 Sitikanta Sastry died while he was taking rest on a cot due to fall of the parapet wall of the newly constructed first floor and he (PW2) personally witnessed the said accident. He also stated that due to defects in construction, the said parapet wall collapsed and that Sitikanta Sastry died on the way to the General Hospital. In his cross-examination, he sated that due to the fall of the wall on the chest and on the face, Sitikanta Sastry died and as he passed away on the way to the General Hospital, they brought him back without taking him to the hospital. He also stated that between 8.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., himself and Sitikanta Sastry's son were talking at the gate while Sitikanta Sastry was relaxing on the cot in open space. The lower Court doubted his presence at the scene on the ground that PW1 did not mention about his presence in her evidence.

In Narasappa v. Kamalamma, AIR 1968 Mys. 345, a cement concrete beam under construction by a contractor under the control and supervision of the State Electricity Board suddenly collapsed causing the death of a workman. Though the cause of the accident was unknown and specific allegations of negligence were not proved, the Court, applying the maxim res ipsa loquitur, drew a presumption as to negligence and held both the contractor and the Electricity Board liable in damages.

Collector, Ganjam v. Chandrama Das, 1975 ACJ 249, was a case in which the portico of a medical college building fell down causing the death of two persons. The Supreme Court held that the portico had fallen on account of the defect in construction and how it had happened is within the exclusive knowledge of the defendants and accordingly the Court, applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, awarded damages.

19. I have already held above that the oral and documentary evidence on record in the instant case clearly establishes that the death of Sitikanta Sastry was due to the accident pleaded by the plaintiffs. It was for the defendants to show how a portion of the first floor under construction collapsed. If the construction was not defective, in the normal course of things, it would not have collapsed. The defendants have not come with any explanation as to how and why it has collapsed. Added to that the defendants failed to establish the specific plea put forward by them that the construction was made after obtaining due sanction from the Municipality. They failed to produce either the sanctioned plan or any order of approval from the Municipality. Under these circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants.