THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU A.S.NO.2197 OF 1992 DT.10.03.2010 Between: Kalivarapu Kamalanabham …………….Appellant Vs. Bhogi Vasantakumari and another ………………Respondents. O R D E R: 1) This appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.36 of 1989, dated 28.08.1992 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. 2) The parties are mentioned as arrayed in the suit. 3) The plaintiff is the mother of six years old daughter, who died in the explosion of crackers manufactured by the first defendant on the order given by the second defendant. Therefore, she filed a suit for recovery of damages of Rs.40,000/- for the death of her daughter. According to the plaintiff, first defendant is the manufacturer of explosive substances and second defendant engaged first defendant to manufacture fire works for ‘Enallu procession’ of his daughter. First defendant without taking proper care, manufactured the explosives at the house of second defendant at the place provided to him. On 04.03.1985, at about 7.00 p.m., after manufacturing the fire works, first defendant stored the same in the verandah of the second defendant in a negligent manner for using the same in the procession. The men of first defendant by name Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Adapa Suri stored the fire works in the verandah of second defendant. The manufactured fire works caught fire and exploded due to negligent conduct of both defendants. The rikshaw pullar P.Chandrayya who was engaged by the second defendant was waiting near the verandah for taking the marriage party, the children of that locality gathered for witnessing the procession. As a result of explosion, the rikshaw pullar, workmen of first defendant and other children including daughter of plaintiff by name Madhavi aged about six years received several injuries. The said Madhavi was taken to the Government Hospital, Narasannapeta. From there she was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam for treatment. In spite of treatment, she succumbed to injuries on the night of 10.03.1985 due to burn injuries caused by the explosion of fire works on account of the negligence of defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed Rs.40,000/- for special damages as compensation on account of the death of Madhavi. 4) The first defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Further, it was stated that the first defendant is in no way concerned with the fire accident taken place on 04.03.1985 at 7.00 p.m., and he is also not liable to pay any compensation as claimed for. Further, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim compensation and the compensation claimed is excessive and the suit itself is not maintainable. The second defendant also filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Further, it is stated that first defendant is a licenced manufacturer of fire works and he supplied fire works for marriage function and other festive occasions as per the orders placed with him. This defendant has nothing to do with the fire works, which are prepared to his order by first defendant. First defendant will be in the custody of the fire works prepared by him at his house and this defendant has nothing to do with the manner and method of preparation of fir works and the mode of lighting them in the procession by first defendant. It is false to state that Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri worked under first defendant. The second defendant never engaged P.Chandrayya as rikshaw puller for taking the marriage party. He was not aware of any explosion of fire works and consequent injuries to the rikshaw puller, the workers and several children including the daughter of the plaintiff. Even if there are injuries, it was purely accidental and this defendant cannot be made responsible for the same. There was no negligence on the part of this defendant. This defendant is not liable to pay any amount by way of compensation. Though first defendant is under no obligation to spend any amount for the medical aid to the injured, out of humanitarian consideration and sympathy, he did so. The second defendant is not expected to take precautions because the fire works are not in his custody. His obligation was only to pay the cost of fire works and the cost of lighting them at some places while taking the procession and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. 5) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1) Whether the 1st defendant has manufactured certain explosives infront of the house of the 2nd defendant on 4.3.1985? 2) Whether Reddy Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri were workmen of the 1st defendant for preparation of the fire works? 3) Whether the 1st defendant is liable to pay any compensation amount to the plaintiff? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any compensation for the death of her child in fire accident that took place on 4.3.1985 from either defendant? 5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in law? 6) Whether the 2nd defendant engaged Ponduru Chandraiah as rikshaw Puller of Narasampeta? 7) To what relief? 6) On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 7) After detailed consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court answered issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the first defendant had manufactured certain explosives in front of the house of second defendant on 04.03.1985 through workers Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri and answered issues 3, 4, 5 and 6 also in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the court below taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, granted compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff with 6% interest per annum. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the second defendant alone. 8) From the above, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) whether the first defendant has manufactured certain explosives in front of the house of the second defendant on 04.03.1985; 2) whether Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri are workers of the first defendant for preparation of crackers; 3) whether second defendant is liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any compensation from either of the defendants for the death of her child in a fire accident that took place on 04.03.1985. 9) Heard both sides. 10) Having gone through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to A.3, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in coming to a conclusion that all the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff and in awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff for the death of her six years old daughter. 11) As seen from the record the plea of the 1st defendant is total ignorance and contended that he had not supplied fire-works. In evidence also DW-1 admitted that he is having licence to manufacture the fire- works. In the written statement he did not allege that D-2 did not place any order for supply of fire works. D-2 in his written statement as well as in his evidence as DW-2 stated that he placed order with D-1 for supply of fire works to the Enallu function of his daughter on 04.03.1985 and the men of D-1 had brought crackers. In cross examination he admitted that Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Adapa Suri who died due to burnt injuries are workers of D-1. DW-1 though denied that Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Adapa Suri are his workers, in cross examination stated that the wives of Reddi Asirivadu and Appalasuri filed cases against him before the J.F.C.M. Court, Narasannapeta. The plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 in her evidence stated that D-1 is manufacturer of explosives and resident of Ravulavalasa, D-2 is resident of Narasannapeta arranged procession to the Enallu function of the daughter and he instructed to D-1 for manufacturing fire works. D-2 got manufactured the fire works in front of house of D-2. Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri are the workers of D-1, who prepared the wire works in the varandah of D-2. They did not take care and precautions in manufacturing the fire works. D-2 engaged PW-2 Pondari Chandraiah for carrying the fire works. At about 7 p.m., the explosion took place due to negligence of the defendants and due to explosion of fire works, her daughter and others received injuries. PW-2 also received injuries. The injured were taken to hospital, Narasannapeta, from there to Head Quarters Hospital, Srikakulam, where her daughter died due to injuries. Ex.A-1 is the postmortem certificate of her daughter. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet against D-1 before the J.F.C.M. Court, Narasannapeta in Cr.No.137/86. In cross examination she categorically stated that she saw D-1 on that day at the fire-works of D-1. She stated that the instant case they prepared the fireworks before house of D-2. She was also present when D-2 engaged rikshaw ouller PW-2. He Pondari Chandrayya in his evidence stated that at the time he went there, fire works are being prepared in the verandah of V.Nagabhusham by Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri the workers of D-1 and D-1 came and gave directions to handover the fire works to D-2. The workers of D-1 again went to bring the remaining crackers, they exploded due to fall of petromax light. He categorically stated that he know that D-2 bringing the same coolies for four or five times for the marriage functions previously. The averments in Ex.A2 the certified copy of the charge sheet also shows that D-2 placed order with D-1 for supply of fire works and explosive material for preparation of fire works along with his workers Reddi Asirivadu and Allu Appalasuri, who had prepared the fire works in the verandah of V.Nagabhushanam. 12) In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the defendants are negligent and liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff. In fact what is fixed as compensation for the death of the daughter of the plaintiff is very less, and it does not call for any interference of this court under Section 96 C.P.C. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12) The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU J., Dt.10.03.2010 tjs