VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR,J. - (1.) This S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 16/2002, Karni Singh and Anr. v. Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D. Jaipur and Ors .
(2.) Briefly stated, the appellants-plaintiffs filed a civil original suit against the respondents-defendants for claim of damages alleging that the appellants-plaintiffs' son Vijendra Singh, aged about 15 years (now deceased), went to see the Ramleela in the nearby village Bukalsar on 09.01.2002. Near the Ramleela Maidan, an overhead water tank was built by the respondent Public Health Engineer Department (for short 'the PHED'), sitting upon which, many people were watching the Ramleela including the deceased Vijendra Singh. But since the mouth of the water tank was not closed by its lid, due to which unfortunately the deceased Vijendra Singh slipped inside the water tank and instantly died. Subsequent to the above incident, an FIR was filed at the police station Sardarshahar, Churu on the next day, in which the police conducted investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 and submitted its report to the S.D.O., Churu on 11.01.2002. It was alleged by the appellants-plaintiffs that the mouth of the water tank was not kept closed for a quite long time by the respondent-department, and due to negligent act of the respondent PHED Office (local), the above referred mishap occurred, due to which the young boy of the appellants-plaintiffs died by drowning in the aforesaid water tank. Subsequent to the incident, the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondent department, alleging that the mishap occurred due to negligence of the respondent department, that the mouth of the water tank was not kept closed and it was lying open for a quite long time, that the son of the appellants-plaintiffs was 15 years of age at the time of incident and that he was earning Rs. 1800/- per month and he was the only hope of their life and thus for loss suffered by the appellants-plaintiffs, a claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 7,25,000/- was prayed against the respondent-department.
(3.) The respondents-defendants, in the written statement, denied all the allegations and it was averred that the deceased boy fell off inside the tank due to his own negligence, that the department is not responsible for the negligence of the deceased, that the overhead water tank was 10 feet high and its lid was closed, that no complaint was ever lodged by any villager about the open mouth of the water tank and despite of this, if someone falls inside the water tank and commits suicide, then the department cannot be held responsible.;