K. Surendra Mohan, J.@mdashThis is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-3-1994 of the IInd Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 873 of 1992. As per the decree, an amount of Rs. 24,000 with 6% interest thereon from the date of suit till the date of realisation and proportionate costs have been awarded as damages to the first Respondent for injuries suffered by her. The damages are awarded against the second Defendant/Panchayat. The said second Defendant is the Appellant in this appeal.
2. The first Respondent/Plaintiff is a casual labourer. On 21-10-1991, at about 5.15 p.m., the Plaintiff was returning home after work through the Thuthiyoor-Palachuvadu Kalachal Padam. On her way, she had to cross the Kalachal thodu. For crossing the thodu, there is a footbridge across the same which is constructed and maintained by the Panchayat for pedestrian traffic. While crossing the thodu, the concrete slab on the footbridge collapsed, the Plaintiff fell into the thodu and suffered injuries. Her ankle joint was crushed and she suffered a series of lacerated injuries over her body. She was initially taken to a nearby clinic where she was administered first aid and was later admitted to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, for treatment. The treatment is stated to be continuing even on the date of filing of the suit. According to the Plaintiff, the footbridge across the thodu belongs to the second Defendant/Panchayat and the collapse of the footbridge was due to its defective construction and improper maintenance. The Panchayat being the local authority had a duty to keep the footbridge safe and in proper maintenance for the benefit of the commuters and the omission to do so amounted to gross negligence. Having failed to discharge their statutory duty, it was contended that the Panchayat was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the personal injuries suffered by her. It is further alleged that the Plaintiff was earning an amount of Rs. 50 per day and was not in a position to resume work due to her disability and loss of earning capacity. According to her, she had spent an amount of Rs. 5,000 for treatment and medicine. She caused the issue of a notice, demanding an amount of Rs. 8,500 as damages from the Defendants. But, there was no response. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000 as damages, the break up of which is contained in the plaint.
3. The first Defendant, Chief Secretary, State of Kerala and the third Defendant, the District Collector, Ernakulam remained ex parte. The suit was contested only by the second Defendant/Panchayat. The second Defendant disputed the incident itself and denied that there was any collapse of the footbridge due to its negligence or any other act of omission or commission on its part. The Panchayat denied the allegation that the footbridge was under the ownership and possession of the Panchayat. It also denied any liability to construct or maintain the footbridge. The second Defendant denied that the Plaintiff had sustained any injury consequent to the accident. The second Defendant disputed all liability to pay the amount that was claimed as damages in the suit.
4. The suit was tried by the court below on the above pleadings, after framing five issues.
5. The evidence in the suit consists of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and Exts. A-1 to A-11 documents on the side of the Plaintiff and Exts. B-1 and B-2 documents on the side of the Defendants.
6. After an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the trial court found that the foot bridge belonged to the Panchayat and that the same was under its upkeep and maintenance. It is further found that the collapse of the slab of the foot bridge was due to lack of proper maintenance and therefore, the accident was a result of lack of care and negligence on the part of the Panchayat. For the above reason, the second Defendant/Panchayat was found liable to compensate the Plaintiff. The damages payable has been quantified and fixed at Rs. 24,000 which amount is awarded with 6% interest thereon and proportionate costs of the suit. The above findings are assailed by the second Defendant/Appellant in this appeal.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the first Respondent/Plaintiff, in detail. I have gone through the pleadings in the case as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary.
8. The point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the court below was justified in allowing the Plaintiff to recover damages from the Appellant and whether the quantum of damages fixed is reasonable?
9. According to the Appellant/Panchayat, the foot bridge across the Kalachal thodu is not under its ownership and possession. The same is also not maintained by the Panchayat, it is alleged. Exts. B-1 and B-2 are two tender registers maintained by the Panchayat. Ext. B-1 tender register relates to the period 1979-1980 and 1980 and 1981. Ext. B-2 is the tender register that relates to the period 1981 to 1983. Page-73 of Ext. B-1 shows that maintenance of the bunds across the Kalachal thodu was done by the Panchayat. Page-58 of Ext. B-2 refers to the work of providing permanent shutters to the Kalachal bund, expenditure for which is met by the Panchayat The registers show that the bunds across the Kalachal thodu were being maintained by the Panchayat, utilising its own funds. The evidence in the case shows that the foot bridge was being used by the general public for crossing the Kalachal thodu. P.W. 2 has given evidence to the effect that the collapsed foot bridge was constructed using the funds of the Panchayat and that the Panchayat was maintaining the collapsed foot bridge. P.W. 4 is the present President of the Panchayat. According to P.W. 4, the Panchayat has not constructed the foot bridge and the same does not belong to the Panchayat. But, the witness admits that two or three foot bridges were constructed by the Panchayat across the Kalachal thodu which are all maintained by the Panchayat P.W. 4 has also issued Ext. A-8, which is a certificate given by him to the husband of the Plaintiff recommending financial assistance to the Plaintiff. It is seen mentioned in Ext. A-8 that the collapsed foot bridge was constructed by the Panchayat. The incident in which the Plaintiff suffered injuries has also been referred to in Ext. A-8. From the totality of the evidence, both oral and documentary available in the case, it can be clearly seen that the foot bridge was constructed by the Panchayat and maintained by it. Therefore, the court below was right in finding so.
10. The incident in which the Plaintiff suffered personal injuries occurred at 5.15 p.m. on 21-10-1991. P.W. 3 is a witness, who was at the scene of occurrence. She pulled the injured Plaintiff from out of the water and has testified to the incident and the injuries suffered. Ext. A-10 Wound Certificate contains the details of the wounds suffered by the Plaintiff. Ext. A-10 certificate of disability proves that the injuries were serious in nature and that they had affected the mobility of the Plaintiff and her capacity to go for work. It is thus clear that consequent to the injuries suffered, the Plaintiff was incapacitated and was not in a position to do any manual work.
11. As per Section 57 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, the duty of construction and maintenance of all public roads in the Panchayat other than National Highways is on the Panchayat. As per Section 62 of the said Act, all public roads, sewers, drains, drainage works, tunnels or culverts whether made at the cost of the Panchayat or otherwise, are all vested in the Panchayat. Therefore, the Panchayat had a statutory duty to maintain the foot bridge. It cannot be disputed that the footbridge was constructed for the purpose of crossing the Kalachal thodu. The fact that the slab of the foot bridge collapsed, when the Plaintiff stepped on it to cross the thodu is sufficient to conclude that the construction of the footbridge was defective and unsafe. The Panchayat had a duty to make such construction safe for the commuters, but it has failed to discharge its duty. I am supported in the above view of the matter by a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in
12. In the present case, the callous and negligent manner in which the foot bridge was constructed by the Panchayat is evident from the way in which the accident occurred. A footbridge is intended for the use of the pedestrian commuters to cross the thodu. Therefore, it is expected to be strong enough to at least hold the weight of a human being. If the same is constructed in a manner in which it would collapse at the whiff of a breath, they cease to be public amenities but become death traps for the citizen. The citizen who suffers injuries in such incidents is entitled to claim compensation for such injuries from the Panchayat or whoever was responsible for providing such public amenity. The Panchayat has got a solemn duty to construct and maintain roads, bridges, drains and other civic amenities. The Panchayat has also got a duty to ensure that such amenities are safe. Because, an unwary pedestrian who is lulled into security by the sight of a concrete bridge would never expect it to give way the moment he steps on it. Therefore, corruption, carelessness and negligence is writ large upon such incidents. Authorities charged with the responsibility of expending public money have also a duty to ensure that the same is utilized properly. Otherwise public amenities would become public traps for the unwary citizen. Therefore, the finding of the court below that the Panchayat was liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff for the injuries suffered by her is correct and supported not only by the evidence on record, but also by the law on the point.
13. The court below has considered the nature of the injuries suffered and fixed the daily wages of the Plaintiff at Rs. 30 per day. Compensation has been awarded only for the period during which the Plaintiff was prevented from doing any manual work. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 6,000 awarded under the above head is perfectly reasonable. Only an amount of Rs. 5,000 has been awarded towards medical expenses. The amount is only reasonable and is liable to be sustained. Towards pain and suffering and compensation for the loss of amenities in life, the court below has awarded an amount of Rs. 13,000. The amount has been awarded taking into consideration the nature of the disabilities suffered by the Plaintiff, as evidenced by Ext. A-10 disability certificate. The compensation awarded cannot be faulted on any ground, considering the seriousness and nature of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. In view of the above, the amount of Rs. 24,000, that has been awarded as damages by the court below with 6% interest thereon, is only reasonable. The judgment and decree appealed against do not call for any interference and I hereby confirm the same.
14. It is to be noted that the Plaintiff is a Harijan lady, who is facing a lot of financial difficulties. Exts. A-8 and A-9 certificates issued by the Ward Member as well as the Panchayat President, recommending her case for financial assistance, clearly proves the financial incapacity of the Plaintiff. She had filed the suit as an indigent person because of her lack of financial resources to pay the court fees. In spite of the above, the Appellant has dragged her to fight a protracted litigation before this Court also. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.
