KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, three appeals viz. (1) RSA No. 673 of 2010 titled as 'Nirmala Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others'; (2) RSA No. 674 of 2010 titled as 'Nirmala Devi and others v. Regular Second Appeals No. 673 to 675 of 2010 SDO Water Services (check)(check)Sub Division and another' and (3) RSA No. 675 of 2010 titled as 'Nirmala Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others' shall be decided altogether, as the lower appellate Court has also passed a common judgment in all the three appeals instituted before it.
(2.) AMRIT Lal, husband of Nirmala Devi plaintiff-appellant No. 1 and father of three minor daughters and a son, i.e. plaintiff-appellants No. 2 to 5, on 14th January, 2002 fell in a drain and died. The plaintiffs had stated in para No. 3 of the plaint as under: "3. That as the plaintiffs are neither having any source of income nor are having any property, hence are unable to pay required Court fee for filing the present suit, hence the plaintiffs are filing the present suit as indigent. An application for permission to file the suit as indigent is being filed along with the plaint, which may kindly be accepted in the interest of justice and the plaintiffs may be allowed to file the present suit without filing the Court fee, as the plaintiffs are indigent." It was further pleaded that the drain was in a dilapidated condition prior to the fatal accident which had caused the death of Amrit Lal. Numerous accidents had taken place and various complaints were made but the officials of the Government had taken no care to repair the damaged safety wall and safety railing and thus, the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the defendant-respondents. It was specifically averred that had the defendant-respondents repaired and rectified the safety wall and railing of the drain bridge the accident would not have occurred.
(3.) IN the plaint, it was stated that Amrit Lal deceased at the time of his death was about 30 years old, was having a good health/physique, was working as a carpenter on contract basis and was earning Rs. 8,000.00 per month. It was further stated that he was the sole earning member of the family. Due to his untimely death which occurred due to the negligence of defendant-respondents, the plaintiff-appellants had no other source of income to defend themselves. The plaintiff-appellants had served a notice under Section 80 CPC and had demanded Rs. 10.00 lakh as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum. It was further pleaded that the defendant-respondents had not cared to reply to the said notice and hence, the suit was instituted. The plaintiff appellants were permitted to sue as indigent persons and the lower appellate Court had also allowed them to file the appeal in this capacity. Vide a separate order passed on September 16, 2010 by this Court, the application filed by the plaintiff-appellants to institute the appeal as indigent persons was also accepted.;