Telangana High Court
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs Ghulam Yazadani on 14 August, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.144 of 2002
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 24.08.2001 passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court) in O.S. No.103 of 1992. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court partly-decreed the suit directing the appellant/defendant to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum towards damages to the respondent/plaintiff. For the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the defendant; and Sri Farhath Firdous, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff.
3. Brief facts of the case are that during the Rath Yatra procession period in the year Dec 1990, there were communal disturbances in the city and the plaintiff, who is a Senior Advocate of the High Court, received information from one Syed Ahmed Hussaini that some persons from BJP party were planning attacks and they would attack him. The plaintiff was the Secretary of Gunfoundry Mosque Committee and also a Congress Party Convener. On 13.12.1990, the Inspector of Police, Abids Circle telephoned the plaintiff at about 9:00 PM to cross check the information received by 2 him as to the information about a planned attack on the plaintiff. The Inspector assured the plaintiff that he would visit the locality and at about 6:00 PM same night the Inspector of Police visited the plaintiff's house and gave his phone number to the plaintiff to call in case of emergency. The plaintiff gave the names of suspects, but no arrest was made by the Inspector. On 14.12.1990, one Srinivas who was a morning walk regular with the plaintiff telephoned the plaintiff that he was also invited for the attack on plaintiff. The plaintiff informed the Inspector but he was not at the station. At 430 PM, the plaintiff telephoned Mr. Chaturvedi, Inspector and asked to see him immediately, but the Inspector expressed is inability at that moment but assured that he will meet the plaintiff later in the evening. At about 9:00 PM, on 14.12.1990 the Inspector along with police Mr. Satyanarayana visited the plaintiff upon which the plaintiff gave a written complaint on his letter-head regarding threat to his life and asked to give protection, but the police did not take any steps. On 16.12.1990, at about 9:00 AM, the plaintiff, Shaik Jamal, Moazin of Gunfoundry Mosque, Irshad Ali Khan and his Clerk Basheer Ahmed were in the Office. One Babu Rao along with Nagabhushanam, BJP workers and another young man whose name plaintiff does not know came to the office of plaintiff on the pretext of organizing Peace Committee in the locality. The plaintiff offered seats to them. Babu Rao asked the young man to bring others in a minute or two. Om Prakash and Rajan entered the Office of plaintiff and as 3 the plaintiff offered seats to them Om Prakash took out a knife while Rajan held him tightly and the plaintiff was stabbed by Om Prakash, Rajan and Nagabhushanam. The plaintiff sustained multiple injuries. Basheer Ahmed, Clerk of plaintiff, and Irshad Ali Khan and Shaik Jamal were also attacked simultaneously. Shaik Jamal died on the spot, the plaintiff's clerk Basheer Ahmed succumbed to injuries in the Osmania General Hospital. Irshad Ali Khan survived on account of medical aid given in the hospital. The plaintiff underwent treatment in Osmania General Hospital for 11 days, and later at Princess Durre Shahwar Children Hospital for further treatment for 3 weeks. Though the police was informed with a written complaint, no protection was given and no steps were taken to avert the attack on the plaintiff. The plaintiff due to the attack and trauma, was compelled to reduce the work and sustained loss of Rs.4,000/- per month on average, and his practice suffered. The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.5,00,000/- against the defendant.
The defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that a number of phone calls were received from various parts of the city and they acted promptly wherever there was trouble and saved number of people and property. The defendant denied that the Rath Yatra was the root cause for the attacks in the month of December 1990. The defendant was not aware that on 13.12.1990, the plaintiff received a telephone call from his neighbor by name Syed Ahmed Hussaini informing the plaintiff 4 that local BJP workers decided to attack the houses of Muslims and their residents and that the attack would start from plaintiff's house. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff informed the Inspector of police about the threat to his life and other Muslims. The defendant denied that Mr. Chaturvedi expressed his inability to leave the police station when informed by the plaintiff to give protection to him, however, admitted that the plaintiff handed over a written complaint to Mr. Chaturvedi on 14.12.1990 at 9:00 PM, and the police acted quickly on the complaint to give him protection and kept a point book at the residence of plaintiff and also deputed a sub inspector Pratap Reddy to visit the house of plaintiff 3 times on the same night i.e., 11 PM, 2 AM and 4 AM and the Sub Inspector obtained his signature and also signed in the Point book. The police patrolled the Gunfoundry area during the curfew period and other days also and took some of the local suspects into custody and dispersed the people forming groups. The police had taken a number of preventive steps to protect the residents of Gunfoundry. The plaintiff never informed to the police regarding the formation of Peace Committee in the locality and the plaintiff himself invited trouble by letting in the accused where the plaintiff was fully aware of the threat to his life. Immediately on hearing the trouble at the plaintiff's house, the police rushed to the spot and saved the life of the plaintiff by giving him immediate medical attention in the hospital. The police registered a Crime No.380/90 arrested the accused and sent them 5 for remand. The enquiries by the Police revealed that the plaintiff was attacked by the accused due to some personal enmity and at no time the inspector of police admitted that he did not have sufficient force to depute to protect the plaintiff. There was police post near the house of plaintiff and took all steps to protect the life and property of residents of the locality; and hence the defendant is not liable to pay for any damages to the plaintiff.
Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as demanded under the various claims as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
On 19.06.2001, the issues were recast and the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendant, in giving adequate protection to the people in the locality in general and particularly to the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount towards damages as claimed under various claims by the plaintiff?
(iii) Whether the suit was barred by limited?
(iv) To what relief?
On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.A-1 to A-140 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs. B-1 to B-7 were marked.6
The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, partly-decreed the suit by awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum against the defendant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant/State.
4. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Court below erred in granting damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff; that the Court below erred in holding that the suit is filed within time; that the Court below erred in holding that the State is liable to pay compensation in this case; that the Court below erred in holding that the police did not provide sufficient protection to the plaintiff; that the Court below ought to have seen that the police have taken all the possible necessary precautions; that twenty one police pickets were posted within the limits of the concerned (Abids) police station and six police pickets were posted in Gunfoundry locality where the plaintiff house is situated; that the mobile parties headed by one sub Inspector was deputed to check the pickets were patrolling the locality; that the Court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of DW1; that the Court below erred in holding that it is for the police to find out and identify the probable culprits from whom the plaintiff apprehended danger even though PW1 did not mention any names in his complaint; that the police acted quickly on the complaint of PW1 and kept a point book at his residence on the same night; the sub inspector visited the plaintiffs house three times on the same night at 7 11:00 PM, 2:00 AM and 4:00 AM and obtained signatures and also signed in the Point book; that the police took all the possible preventive measures as detailed in the written statement; that the plaintiff failed to inform the police regarding formation of Peace Committee in his locality; that the Court below erred in granting damages on the ground that the Government machinery failed to provide safety to his life; that the judgment of the court below is contrary to law, the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent would contend that the trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and the same does not warrant interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court, with regard to the issue of limitation has observed that the incident took place on 15.12.1990, and the plaintiff got issued notice under Section 80 of CPC dated 09.06.1991 under Ex.A3, and another notice under Ex.A4 dated 03.11.1991 was issued to the Chief Secretary and the suit was filed on 27.01.1992. In support of the plaintiff case, he relied on Jay laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 1; and Challa Ramakonda Reddy v. 1 1994 (4) SCC 1 8 State of Andhra Pradesh 2. In Jay Laxmi (1 supra), the Hon' ble Supreme Court held that the computation for the purpose of limitation under Article 36 (113 new) of Limitation Act, would commence either from the dateof malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance occurred or from the dat when the damage took place or where the claim is lodged within period allowed by law and the damages are ascertained, or from the date the claim is rejected. The limitation to file the suit in the present case arises from the date the Government refused to pay the amount determined by the Committee, and since the rejection was not communicated nor the copy of report supplied, despite request the suit could not be said to be barred by time. In ChallaRamakonda Reddy (2 supra), the Division bench of High Court held that Rule 48 of the Madras Jail Rules obligates the Police to safeguard the prisoners while in their custody and makes them statutorily responsible for the safe-custody of the prisoners, and it cannot be said that while failing to properly guard the jail, the officials were honestly believing that they were failing to do so in pursuance of an enactment. The trial Court therefore held that the suit is within time.
7. Coming to the issue of entitlement to damages claimed by the plaintiff, it is observed by the trial Court that PW1 contended that inspite of giving complaint to the police apprehending danger to his life, the police failed to give protection thereby he suffered the attack and the attack was 2 AIR 1989 AP 235 9 premeditated, and the plaintiff had to spend huge amounts for his medical expenses and he lost the professional income as he could not attend the Courts for six months. Plaintiff's counsel placed reliance on D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal 3, Sri Laxmi Agencies v. Government of A.P 4, AIR 1989 AP 235, and 2000 (6) ALD 17.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader before the trial Court contended that in pursuance of Ex.A1 complaint, the police made G.D entry and posted a constable at the house of plaintiff to give protection to plaintiff. In addition to that the Sub-Inspector of Police visited the house of PW1 for every 2 hours as per the dirction given by DW1. PW1 has not examined the person from whom he received credible information about the attack on PW1. The Police is no way concerned with the violence indulged by private individuals and all possible precautions were taken to protect the life of PW1 and there is no negligence on the part of the State and the Government cannot be mulled with the liability to pay compensation to the plaintiff. The defendant relied on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1407 of 2000 1994 (1) ALT 341; and W.A.No.1611 & 1005 of 1994.
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has 3 AIR 1997 SC 610 4 1994 (1) ALT 341 10 the power to award compensation for the wrong done due to the public breach by the State for not protecting the rights and lives of people. Similar judgment was rendered in Sri Laxmi( ), and Challa Ramakonda Reddy ( ), and in J.K. Traders, Hyderabad v. State of A.P. 5, wherein this Court held that "constitutional mandate enjoins upon the State to protect the person and property of every citizen and if it fails to discharge its duty, the State is liable to pay the damages to the victims."
The trial Court observed that the plaintiff/PW1 deposed that on 13.12.1990 he received telephonic information about threat to his life in an impending attack by some BJP workers, and that he informed the Inspector of Police, Abids circle, and also gave a written complaint (Ex.A-1) about the imminent threat and requested to provide protection, the police failed to give protection and he was attacked with knife by Om Prakash, Rajan and Nagabhushanam on 15.12.1990 at about 9:00 AM in his office and he sustained stab injuries and his Clerk Shaik Jamaal was also attacked and he died on the spot and clerk Basheer died in the hospital. The plaintiff was shifted to Osmania Generalhospital for treatment from 15.12.1990 to 26.12.1990, and thereafter shifted to Princess Durre Shahwar Children Hospital where he underwent treatment for 3 days and incurred huge expenditure for treatment. PW-1 produced Exs.A-12 to A-47 in support of his plea. Further the evidence of PW-1 that the attack was 5 (2000 (6) ALD 17 11 pre-meditated and the police did not take any steps to protect his life. On account of this incident he incurred lot of expenses and suffered damages by way of vacating of tenants in first floor and second floor thereby losing Rs.1,700 per month; and plaintiff himself had to rent a house till 17.01.1991 on account of the incident and paid Rs.20,000/- each to the family of his clerk Basheer Ahmed and Shaik Jamal, and his son incurred Rs.45,000/- to visit him from Saudi Arabia, and he stayed away at Gulbarga from 21.04.1991 to 26.05.1991 and incurred Rs.9,500/- and he claimed a sum ofRs.2,30,000/- towards loss of health and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, and claimed exemplary damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for failure of government machinery to provide protection to his life. In all, PW1 claimed Rs.5,40,000/- however limited the claim to Rs.5,00,000/-.
Cross-examination of PW1 was also directed to the effect that Police have taken all precautionary measures to avert the attack and protect PW1 in pursuance of his complaint Ex.A1 and that the compensation being claimed is excessive.
Coming to the evidence of DW1-Chaturvedi, the then Inspector of Police, Abids Police Station, he stated that with a view to maintain law and order on 04.12.1990, 21 police pickets were posted within the limits of Abids Police Station, out of which 6 police pickets were posted in Gunfoundry locality and two mobile parties headed by one Sub Inspector 12 with a vehicle was directed to check the pickets round the clock; and that DW1 and the mobile patrol were patrolling the area with a view to infuse confidence in the minds of public and local residents, and in that process he met elderly people of all communities in the locality and infused confidence in them; and on 14.12.1990 at about 8.00 or 8.30 PM while he was patrolling in the Gunfoundry area and meeting the local people he met one Syed Shoukat Hussain who advised and requested him to meet PW1. While continuing patrolling duty he met PW1 at 9:10 PM at PW1 residence and PW1 took him inside his office and handed over Ex.A-1 complaint and obtained his acknowledgment. DW1 further deposed that after perusing Ex.A1 complaint, he asked PW1 to reveal the names of the persons or the agency from whom he is apprehending danger, but PW1 could not give any names or any other information, and DW1 on returning to police station, made the GD entry of Ex.A1 complaint and immediately deputed one Sub- Inspector by name C. Pratap Reddy along with two police constables with instructions to keep the vigil over the house of PW1 and visit the house of PW1 for every 3 hours. The point book was also kept at the house of PW1. And the sub Inspector visited the house of PW1 three times in the midnight and signed in the point book and obtained his acknowledgment. And on 15.12.1990 at about 4:00 AM PW1 advised the police party not to disturb him and requested them to go away. The trial Court observed that this part of the evidence has no basis, as the DW1 has not examined the 13 said sub-inspector of police to substantiate the version of DW1. The point book containing the signatures of DW1 was also not produced. PW1 has denied the signatures taken on the point book by the police from him.
The trial Court observed that DW1 further deposed that on 15.12.1990 at about 9:00 AM when he was in the police station, he received a vague telephonic message that trouble is going on in the house of PW1, immediately he along with two sub-inspectors and staff proceed to the house of PW1. He found PW1 and 2 others with bleeding injuries lying in the house of PW1. He shifted the injured to the hospital. The statement of PW1 was recorded by the sub inspector Satyanarayana in the hospital. The statement of PW1 was also recorded by the Magistrate in the Hospital. On the strength of the statement of PW1 recorded by the sub inspector a case in Crime No.385/1990 was registered and the criminal case ended in acquittal as PW1 and other material witnesses turned hostile. DW1 further deposed that on 15.12.1990 W1 did not inform either to him or to the sub inspector or to the nearest police picket about his plan for forming Peace Committee at his residence in the morning. Prior to 9:15 PM on 14.12.1990 PW1 has not spoken to him either in person or telephone. PW1 has not given any names of the suspects or unsocial elements from whom he was apprehending danger to him and the police have sincerely patrolled round the clock to give protection to every citizen of the locality and the 14 police are no way responsible for the attack at the house of PW1 and the Government is not liable to pay any damages claimed by the plaintiff.
DW-1, in his cross examination, admitted that there were communal riots in Hyderabad City in December 1990. General instructions were given by his superior officers to control the riots. No preventive arrests were made on the outbreak of communal riots in December 1990. DW1 further admitted in the cross examination that he received Ex.A-1 complaint on 14.12.1990 at 9:15 PM at the residence of PW1 but no preventive arrests were made in pursuance of Ex.A1 complaint and PW1 has not given any names from whom he is apprehending danger. None of the police officials including the sub inspector and police constables said to have been visited the house of PW1 were examined. PW1 denied about the posting of 2 constables at his residence. The trial Court observed that this plea has not been put forth in the written statement of the defendant. DW1 has for the first time introduced this plea in his evidence. The trial Court further observed that DW1 was not figured as witness in the criminal case and the said fact was admitted by DW1. The trial Court further observed that when PW1 specifically gave a complaint about threat to his life, it is the duty of the police to post a picket at the house of PW1 in a distance of 100 yards from the house of PW1 and there is no evidence such a police picket was posted at a distance of 100 yards from the house of PW1 to corroborate the 15 evidence of DW1, and this version of DW1 was also not there in the criminal case filed by the police.
The trial Court observed that the defendant has mainly relied on the deposition of PW1 which is marked as Ex.B-1. It is the contention of defendant that PW1 turned hostile and he did not claim compensation from the persons attacked on him. PW1 in his evidence under Ex.B1 stated that he knows Babu Rao (accused No.5), Om Prakash (accused No.3) and Rajan (accused No.2, and those names were given to him by his neighbours. He does not know the names of other persons who entered in his office. But he can identify them. In Ex.B7 statement recorded by the Magistrate also, PW1 gave the abovementioned 3 names, and that it is conspicuous to note that police have not conducted any test identification parade for identifying the accused in criminal case No.385/90. The trial Court, therefore observed that the police miserably failed to protect the life of PW1, though he gave written complaint under Ex.A1 and informed the police through telephone to prevent danger to his life and requested the police personnel to give protection to his life, and therefore the State is liable to pay compensation to PW1.
In view of the rationale decided in the aforesaid judgments with regard to the obligation of the State to protect its citizens, and considering 16 the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages.
8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, PW1 in total claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages under various Heads. The trial Court observed it justified to grant Rs.20,000/- for loss of income against Rs.36,000/- claimed by PW1. Similarly towards loss of rents, the trial Court observed that PW1 did not examine any of his tenants to substantiate his claim. For the amount towards his rents, PW1 did not produce any rental receipts. For Rs.40,000/- claimed on the ground that he paid Rs.20,000/- each to the widows of his clerk Basheer Ahmed and Shaik Jamal, the trial Court observed that he paid the amount on gratia, so PW1 cannot claim compensation on the amount given to his clerks on gratia. PW1 claimed Rs.41,000/- towards the expenses for his son for visiting him from Saudi Arabia, except the oral evidence of PW1 no documents were produced in support of his claim and he did not even examine his son to show that his son had in fact spent that amount. PW1 claimed Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and torture faced by his and his family members, and the trial Court granted entire amount under that Head. PW1 also claimed Rs.30,000/- towards loss of health, and PW1 produced cost of medical reports but he produced bills less than Rs.10,000/-. The trial Court observed that this is not a case for grant of compensation under each and every Head; and that this is a case claiming 17 compensation for the failure of the State to grant protection to W1. PW1 claimed Rs.1,00,000/-- for the failure of Government machinery for providing safety to his life, and the trial Court upon considering the evidence felt it justified to grant Rs.6,000/- towards that. In all, the trial Court granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards the damages suffered by PW1, directing the defendant to pay the said compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.
9. Having considered the respective contentions, and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and passed the impugned Judgment and the same does not require interference by the Court.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 14th August, 2024 ksm