Skip to content


Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Hira Lal De and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Cal712
AppellantRivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
RespondentHira Lal De and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....1933, when due to the negligent navigation of the serang of the ss 'mikir' owned by the rivers steam navigation co. ltd., there was a col-lision between the steamer and the motor boat with the result that dina-bandhu de was drowned. on these allegations dinabandhu's two sons, hiralal de and jitesh chandra de, filed a plaint suing the rivers steam navigation co. ltd., for damages under the fatal accidents act (act 13 of 1855). the plaint however was presented by hiralal alone and not by jitesh. the learned subordinate judge rejected the application of jitesh but allowed that of jitesh's brother hiralal; and it is against this order allowing hiralal's application for permission to sue in forma pauperis that the present rule is directed.2. this rule, in my opinion, must be made.....
Judgment:

Mallik, J.

1. This rule is directed against an order by which an application made by one Hiralal De for permission to sue as a pauper was allowed by the second Subordinate Judge of Dacca on 29th June 1933. One Dina-bandhu De was travelling in a motor launch, named the 'Meghna' on 17th January 1933, when due to the negligent navigation of the Serang of the SS 'Mikir' owned by the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., there was a col-lision between the steamer and the motor boat with the result that Dina-bandhu De was drowned. On these allegations Dinabandhu's two sons, Hiralal De and Jitesh Chandra De, filed a plaint suing the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act (Act 13 of 1855). The plaint however was presented by Hiralal alone and not by Jitesh. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application of Jitesh but allowed that of Jitesh's brother Hiralal; and it is against this order allowing Hiralal's application for permission to sue in forma pauperis that the present rule is directed.

2. This rule, in my opinion, must be made absolute. As I have stated above, the damages that, were claimed were under the Fatal Accidents Act. Under Section 1 of that Act, the suit against the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. was for the benefit, not only of Hiralal alone, but also of Hiralal's brother Jitesh, Hiralal's widowed mother and the two daughters of Dinabandhu, all of whom, it appears, were living at the time. Section 3, Fatal Accidents Act, lays down that the full particulars of all the beneficiaries are to be given in the plaint. The plaint filed by Hiralal however did not contain all these particulars, That being so, the plaint filed by Hiralal cannot be said to have complied with all the requirements of the provisions of Order 33, Rule 2 Civil P. C, and the plaint not having complied with the requirements of that rule, ought, in my opinion, to have been rejected Under Order 33, Rule 5 of the Code. The rule therefore as observed at the outset, must be made absolute with costs, hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur, to be divided half and half between the Secretary of State and the Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. It is to be under-stood that the observations we have made regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act will not affect the merits of the case at the time of hearing. They have been made for the purpose of considering the question of pauperism only.

Patterson, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //