M.M. Kumar, J.@mdashState of Haryana-defendant-appellants have filed the instant appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ''the Code'') challenging the concurrent findings that the department of PWD (B&R), Rohtak was negligent in performance of its duty to notify the ditches in the area of village Assam, Sonepat road, Rohtak as no warning, sign board or Red Light was flashed. The negligence of the department resulted into an accident on 24.3.1996 at 7.30 p.m. in the area of village Assan near a Dharamkanta (weighing scale) of sugar-cane. As a result, the plaintiff-respondent, who was travelling on a scooter, fell in the ditch and suffered serious head injury and other injuries on various parts of his body. The accident was witnessed by many witnesses present at the nearby Dharamkanta who removed him to the PGIMR Rohtak where he remained admitted for treatment from 24.3.1996 to 12.6.1996. On the basis of aforementioned findings that there was a duty imposed on PWD Department and its officials to maintain the road properly for public use by observing due care and caution, both the Courts awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
2. Mr. N.K. Joshi, learned State counsel has argued that the claim made by the plaintiff-respondent appears to be fictitious because the statements made by DW-1 Arvind Kumar, Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD, Department, DW-2 Suresh Kumar and DW-3 Hem Chand, Beldars respectively show that the road was in a good condition without any ditch and there was no complaint of any accident on the relevant date. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Another submission made by the learned counsel is concerning quantum of compensation. It has been submitted that the plaintiff-respondent has already been reimbursed Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- by the department where he has been working as a pubic servant. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as damages is on the higher side.
3. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and am of the view that both the submissions are completely devoid of any merit because it has come on record that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted in the PGIMR Rohtak from 24.3.1996 to 12.6.1996. PW1 Rajbir Singh has proved DDR No. 11 dated 25.3.1996 Ex.P1 where the statement of one Ram Kishan who had brought the plaintiff-respondent in a serious injured condition to the hospital, had been recorded. Ram Kishan is an eye witnesses and is in no way related to the plaintiff-respondent. He saw the scooter on which the plaintiff-respondent was travelling and met with an accident due to pots on the road. Therefore, no credence could be accorded to the statements made by the witnesses of the defendant-appellants.
4. The statement of PW5 Dr. R.S. Dahiya and PW4 Dr. Gulshan Arora have also come on record showing that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted in the hospital from 24.3.1996 to 12.6.1996. It has also been found that because of multiple injuries, the plaintiff-respondent continued visiting as an Outdoor patient to them for a considerably long time. According to the learned Civil Judge a casual look at the plaintiff-respondent gave the impression that he is a disabled person. It is thus evident that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence with regard to condition of the road, injuries suffered by the plaintiff-respondent and the period of hospitalization. It has also been found that the P.W.D. Department is under an obligation to maintain the roads free of pots and in case of necessary repairs, a notice is required to be flashed to guide the users of the road especially during the night time so that they may avoid falling in the ditches and suffer multiple injuries/fractures.
5. It is well settled principle of law that whenever there is a duty to act in the interest of safety and health of a citizen, the negligence or breach of duty by that authority would sound in award of damages. The minimum standard of care required for maintaining the safety and welfare of a citizen has to be provided and in case of failure to do so which may cause pain or sufferings to a citizen, then it would result into damages. In
"By as catena of decisions, the law is well settled that if there is a tree standing on the defendant''s land which is dried or dead and for that reason may fall and the defect is one which is either known or should have been known to the defendant, then the defendant is liable for any injury caused by the fall of the tree (See Brown v. Harrison, Quinn v. Scott and Mackie v. Dumbartonshire Country Council). The duty of the owner/occupier of the premises by the side of the road whereon persons lawfully pass by, extends to guarding against what may happen just by the side of the premises on account of anything dangerous on the premises. The premises must be maintained in a safe state of repair. The owner/occupier cannot escape the liability for injury caused by the any dangerous thing existing on the premises by pleading that he had employed a competent person to keep the premises in safe repairs. In Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti a clock tower which was 80 years old collapsed in Chandni Chowk, Delhi causing the death of a number of persons. Their Lordships held that the owner could not be permitted to take a defence that he neither knew nor ought to have known the danger. "[T] he owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect,"- said their Lordships. In our opinion the same principle is applicable to the owner of a tree standing by the side of a road. If the tree is dangerous in the sense that on account of any disease or bring dead the tree or its branch is likely to fall and thereby injure any passer-by then such a tree or branch must be removed so as to avert the danger to life. It is pertinent to note that it is not the defence of the Municipal Corporation that vis major or an act of God such as a storm, tempest, lighting or extraordinary heavy rain had occurred causing the fall of the breach of the tree and hence the Corporation was not liable."
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in
6. When the facts of the present case are examined in light of the principles laid i down by the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that there is a common law duty imposed on the P.W.D.Department to maintain the road so as to avoid any danger to human life and safety. In cases where possibility of damage to personal safety is anticipated, there is a duty to flash the information giving adequate notice to the users of the road to take precaution and avoid accidents. The defendant-appellants have miserably failed in their j duty to give any intimation to the users of the road which resulted into serious injuries to the plaintiff-respondent. It must be realised by all concerned that the damage caused by an accident to a human being causes innumerable sufferings. If the victim of an accident is a bread earner of the family, then his problems are multiplied. If the death is caused by the accident, then the family is plunged into a crisis. There would be questions of making both ends meet, apart from the responsibility of sending the children to the school and bearing their expenses. Therefore, the findings of facts speak for themselves and do not call for any interference by this Court.
7. The argument raised by the learned State counsel concerning the quantum of damages has not impressed me. The plaintiff-respondent has remained admitted in the hospital as indoor patient from 24.3.1996 to 12.6.1996 and has been attending as an outdoor patient for a very long time. The damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by no stretch of imagination could be regarded as exorbitant. It is true that in matters of this nature, no objective criteria has been laid down to assess the damages to be awarded, yet on the relevant consideration, the discretion exercised by both the Courts below should ordinarily be respected. Some room has to be given for guess work, therefore, the discretion exercised by both the Courts below in awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- as damages to the plaintiff respondent would also not call for any modification or interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, I do not wish to express any opinion with regard to application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 15 days delay.
