UNION OF INDIA AS OWNER OF THE NORTH EASTERN RLY ADMINISTRATION Vs. SUPRIYA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subhabrata Ghosh, aged 31, was working as an Inspector under Messrs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. and was posted at Chapra in February, 1961 on 17th February, 1961, at about 8.45 P. M., he was returning to Chapra from Sonepur side on a motor car which he himself was driving. While passing through level crossing No. 4 situate in between Sonepur and Parmanandpur Railway Stations of the North Eastern Railway, the car was dashed by 2 Down Awadh Tirhut Mail. The car was smashed and he was seriously injured. While being taken to the Sonepar hospital, he died on the way. His wife, aged 22, daughter (minor) aged about 8 months and mother aged 51 years, at the time of the accident (Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively) brought the suit from which this appeal arises for compensation and damages. The total amounts claimed was Rs. 3,00,000.00 under the following heads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_129_AIR(PAT)_1973Html1.htm</FRM> According to their case, the gates of the said level crossing were kept open and it was not guarded by any gate-man at the material time, as required under law and thereby inviting passers-by to go through and to cross the Railway lines through the said level crossing. The deceased could get no indication of the arrival of the aforesaid train and the occurrence took place due to wrongful act, negligence, default and misconduct or carelessness of the defendant-appellant the Union of India representing the North Eastern Railway or its employee or employees or its agent or agents. The deceased at the time of the occurrence was drawing a salary of Rupees 385/- and allowance of Rupees 525/- per month and other emoluments and facilities with free quarters, free servants and was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. He could have worked for another 25 years. As a result of the death, the respondents were deprived of means of support which they were getting and could have got from the deceased. He was contributing to the family a sum of Rs. 700/- per month for its expenses. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were expected to live for another 35, 65 and 10 years respectively from the date of the accident. Respondent No. 2 was to be educated and married properly. The deceased was of sober habits and of sound physique. He had a vigorous life and was the only earning member of the family consisting of himself and the respondents. He left no Will and the respondents were the only beneficiaries and representatives of the deceased. It was averred in the plaint that necessary notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served before the institution of the suit.

(2.) Besides pleading that the respondents had no cause of action and the suit was not maintainable and time barred, the appellant denied that at the time of the accident the gates of the level crossing were kept open and the accident was due to any wrongful act, negligence, default, misconduct or carelessness on the part of it or its employees. According to its case, the said level crossing is at a height of about 14 feet from the ground level on either side and any train moving from Parmanandpur towards Sonepur is always visible from considerable distance to persons approaching it by road. The head light of the engine of the said train and the light of the compartments were burning brightly. The sound of the moving train was also audible from a long distance. The night was clear and .starry and visibility quite good. Subhabrata Ghosh died on account of his own negligence and fault and the defendant was not liable for any damages. The deceased could not have contributed Rs. 700/- per month to his family. The claim for damages was incorrect and highly exaggerated. The respondents had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India on account of insurance of the life of the deceased and a handsome amount from the employer of the deceased as ex gratia payment. These amounts were concealed by them in making the present claim.

(3.) The main issues in the suit were--Was the accident due to negligence and misconduct of the defendant or its employees and were the plaintiffs entitled to compensation and, if so, to what amount? The court below has held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration and, as such, the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiffs. It has passed a decree for Rupees 1,27,000.00 with interest and costs on the findings that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any amount as loss of gratuity, but were entitled to get Rs. 1,20,00000 for loss of support to the family. Rs. 3300.00 for loss of Company's contribution to provident fund and Rs. 3700.00 for loss of pension.