Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On May 25, 1962 at about 5-15 P.M. one of the girders slipped from its encasement and after damaging the wall, fell down. Thereafter the whole of the hall and its walls collapsed. The plaintiff's husband Mohammed Khan, who was an unskilled labourer earning Rs. 2 to 3 per day at Jodhpur, was employed three to four days before the accident as a helper to the Mistry Rahim Bux P.W. 3 and taken to the work-site at Jalore on a wage of Rs. 5/- per day to remove the defects in the western wall pointed out by the Assistant Engineer on May 23, 1962 vide Ex. A/4. It further appears that his wages were not fixed. The girder unfortunately fell on him and he died almost instantaneously due to the injuries sustained by him. The deceased at the time of his death was 21 years of age, Hence, claim for compensation.

7. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim on a number of grounds. The defendant No. 1 State Government repudiated its liability on the ground that the defendant No. 2 was an independent contractor and the collapse of the walls was due to his negligence and it could not be made vicariously liable for the same. It disputed that the walls of a width of 1 1/2' were not sufficient to bear the weight of the girders placed thereon. It alleged that the walls collapsed due to three reasons namely, (1) poor workmanship, (2) use of defective lime, and (3) damage to the walls while the girders were being placed and, therefore, the western wall went out of plumb. The defendant No. 1, therefore, asserted that it was not liable to pay any damages at ell and in the alternative disputed the quantum of damages claimed.

13. The submission of Shri Hastimal Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 2 was that there is error in principle in ascertainment of Rs. 70,200/- as the quantum of damages. Reliance is placed on Gobald Motor Service v. R. M. K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1, Smt. Kamla Devi v. Kishanchand, AIR 1970 Madh Pra 168. In view of the settled principles, the Court had, under the Fatal Accidents Act, to ascertain the actual pecuniary loss, which is but an estimate. The measure of damages is arrived at after settling the figure of annual dependency multiplied by the number of years' purchase i.e. by the 'multiplier'. The multiplier, according to the decided cases, tends to be in the region of 13 to 18. The deceased was an unskilled labourer with no settled employment. He earned only Rs. 3.50 p. per day for 20 days in a month, but contributed nothing to the family and was himself a dependant. Even taking a generous view, the basic figure at Rs. 360/-per year at the multiplier as 18, the amount of compensation could not, in any event, exceed Rs. 6000/-. In the alternative, he contends that the liability is of the defendant No. 1 and not of the defendant No. 2, who was an agent or servant and, therefore, an invitee. The cause of the accident was the change in the "design i.e., by the Engineer-in-Charge directing the defendant No. 2 to place iron girders and stone-slabs in place of AC Sheets and he was, by Clause 12, bound to carry out such directions. It is said that the walls collapsed because the walls of 1 1/2' width could not sustain the weight of the girders and stone slabs and this was not due to any bad workmanship on the part of the defendant No. 2 or because of the use of bad lime by him in the construction of the building.

21. It is difficult to accept the view of the learned Additional District Judge that the collapse of the walls was entirely due to the placing of the iron girders and stone patties, which could not bear their weight and, therefore, gave way. In our view, this was one of the many factors, which resulted in the collapse of the hall. There was not only poor workmanship on the part of the defendant No. 2, but also the use of defective lime mortar. Actually, the wall had gone out of plumb. This is clearly borne out by the testimony of Vidhyaratan, former Additional Chief Engineer, 1-DW/ 8, Chandrabhushan, Executive Engineer, 1-DW/l and Baliram, Junior Engineer. 1-DW/4. Two days before the accident i.e. 23-5-1962 the Assistant Engineer had inspected the works and found that the walls above the bedplates were out of plumb and that cracks had appeared in the western wall, vide inspection note Ex. A/4. The plaintiff's sole witness Mistry Rahim Bux PW/3 admits that at the time of the accident, he was engaged in removing the defects pointed out. The authenticity of the document Ex. A/4 is beyond question. Immamudin, a partner of the firm defendant No. 2 2-DW/1 admits that the Assistant Engineer had on 23-5-62, pointed out to him the defects on the spot. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the part of the wall had gone out of plumb and that cracks had also appeared. This clearly shows poor workmanship on the part of the defendant No. 2. After the accident, the P.W.D. authorities sent the samples of lime used by the defendant No. 2 to the Government Test House, Calcutta. The Test Certificates are on record and the report of the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer dated 6-8-1964 Ex. A/8 on the basis of these certificates was that the failure of the walls was due to eccentricity of loading occurred as a result of the wall not being plumbed and the specification of the mortar being poor. There can, therefore, be no doubt whatever that both the defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay damages.