Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C.B. Capoor, J.C.

1. This first appeal by Shri Jai Singh is directed against a judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, whereby the claim put forward by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and two others under the Fatal Accidents Act for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was decreed for a sum of Rs. 7,680/- in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Near Dehar Tehsil Sundernagar district Mandi, there is a suspension bridge on river Sutlej. On one side of the bridge is Bilaspur District and on the other Mandi district. Dehar is in district Mandi. The bridge was suspended on two galvanised iron ropes on each side. It was to be widened and one more galvanised rope was to be added on each side. The contract for the widening of the bridge and for repair work had been given to the appellant. In August, 1955, the bridge was under repairs. Mehanga Ram, hereinafter to be referred as 'the deceased', the son of respondents Nos. I and 2, was passing over the bridge from Bilaspur side at about 1 and 2 P. M. on 29-8-1955. All of a sudden the bridge tilted and he fell down in the river below. His body could not be traced and it is alleged that he breathed his last as a result of falling down.

It was also denied that the ropes of the bridge had been loosened or that there was any neglect of duty on the part of the appellant or any of the labourers employed in connection with the widening of the bridge. The tilting of the bridge was stated to be purely accidental. It was also denied that the deceased was a shining student or that any pecuniary loss had been occasioned as a result of his alleged death. The right of the plaintiffs to claim any sum as damages was repudiated and the amount claimed was stated to be excessive in any case.

Neither Shri R. D. Jain, then an Overseer in the Himachal Pradesh P. W. D. nor any other witness examined on behalf of the defence made a definite statement as to how the bridge tilted. Churu (D. W. 2) has stated that after the rope had fallen down and water was lashing it he had during the leisure period--which used to be from 12 noon to 2 P. M.--told two or three boys including the deceased who were on the Bilaspur side and were to cross the bridge that water was" dashing against the rope and they should not go over the bridge but they did not pay any heed to that and went over the bridge and shortly afterwards the bridgs tilted. It has not been disputed in the course of the defence evidence that no red flag or board cautioning the passersby not to pass over the bridge had been put up.

26. The main question that calls for determination is as to whether the tilting of the bridge was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the appellant or of the labourers employed by him and in that connection reference may first be made to the statements made by the witnesses for the respondents. It has already been seen that Tawarsu (P. W. 5) and Sunder (P. W. 6) were employed by the appellant as labourers and on the day of the incident were working at the bridge. Tawarsu has stated that the nuts had been oiled and the new rope had been placed on the old ropes and on account of the weight of the new rope the nuts got loosened and bridge tilted down. Sunder (P. W. 6) has stated that the ropes became loose and the bridge collapsed. Madan Lal (P. W. 12), Batan Singh (P. W. 13) and Gopalu (P. W. 15) have stated that on the day of the incident they had occasion to pass over the bridge prior to the incident and they saw the labourers removing the lead which had accumulated on the ropes.