Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Government Of A.P. Rep. By Its Secretary vs T. Sai Lakshman on 9 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.513 of 2011
Dated 09.09.2024
Between:-
Government of Andhra Pradesh.,
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department., & 2 others .... Appellants
And
T. Sai Lakshman, Minor,
Rep. by his next friend father,
T. Swamy Kondaiah., & another .... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants : G.P for Appeals
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. V.R Reddy Kovvuri
Mr. J. Seshagiri Rao
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
The present appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved
by Judgment and decree in O.S No.24 of 2008 on the file of V
Addl. District Judge, Kadapa., dated 17.08.2010.
2. The 1st respondent represented by his next friend father
filed a suit towards expenditure incurred apart from
compensation for the injury sustained by him. As per the
averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent No.1,
son of a coolie and a fourth class student was present in the
classroom on 27.10.2006. The 4th defendant/respondent No.2
who is a Teacher in the M.P Elementary School., with a view
to punish a student by name Anand, had chased him with a
stick and entered into the classroom of the plaintiff and raised
the stick, but due to his carelessness and negligence, the stick
contacted the right eye of the plaintiff and a result of the
same, he sustained grievous injury. The father of the plaintiff
took him to Rayachoty, Government Hospital for treatment,
on their advice joined him in L.V Prasad Eye Hospital,
Hyderabad., where a surgery was conducted and an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/-., was incurred for the same. Though the 4th
defendant/respondent No.2 promised that he would meet the
medical expenditure, he had not paid any amount and
therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit claiming a
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. In the Trial Court the appellants/defendants 1 to 3
remained exparte. The 4th defendant/respondent No.2
contested the suit by filing written statement. During the
course of trial, the Trial Court formulated the following
issues:-
"1. Whether the 4th defendant has caused
the grievous injury to the right eye of the minor
plaintiff as pleaded by the plaintiff?
2. Whether the Minor plaintiff is entitled for
any compensation for the injury sustained by
him?. If so at what rate and against which of the
defendants?
3. To what relief?"
4. On behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 to 6 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. The defendant No.4/respondent
No.2 was examined as DW1. He had not adduced any
documentary evidence.
5. Before the Trial Court, the 4th defendant/respondent
No.2 inter alia pleaded that he was not responsible for the
injury and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 might have sustained
the same by falling on ground. However, the learned Trial
Court by considering the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 coupled with
Ex.A.15-letter addressed by the Teacher/defendant No.4 to
the DEO, Kadapa recorded a finding that the injury sustained
by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to the right eye was on
account of deliberate act of the 4th defendant/respondent
No.2.
6. Insofar as the claim for compensation for the injury as
also expenditure incurred for the treatment, the Doctor who
was examined as PW6 categorically deposed that the visual
impairment suffered by the plaintiff is 30% as per uniform
definition of Physically Handicapped, Ministry of Welfare,
Government of India. He further deposed that there is no
chance of getting vision to the right eye and the plaintiff was
advised to put an artificial eye. He also deposed that
plaintiff/respondent No.1 requires regular checkup to the left
eye for six months to keep left eye safe.
7. Taking the oral evidence adduced through PW.6 and the
documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 and A2, Discharge
Summary issued by Sankar Nethralaya, Eye Hospital and
Opthaimic Report issued by Dr.Agarwal Subhash Eye Hospital,
Chennai, Ex.A12 Visually Handicapped Certificate issued by
S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi, etc., into consideration, the
learned Trial Judge had arrived at the compensation for the
disability suffered by the plaintiff by adopting the formula as
per 2nd schedule to Motor Vehicles Act., at Rs.67,500/-.
The Trial Court has also awarded an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- incurred for the treatment of the plaintiff.
Insofar as expenses for future medical treatment,
transportation and attendant charges an amount of
Rs.50,000/- was granted and the Trial Court had awarded an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, loss of vision
of right eye of the plaintiff, loss of confidence, discomfort and
hardship for remaining period of life and loss of marriage
prospects. Thus, the Trial Court decreed the suit partly for
Rs.4,17,500/- payable jointly and severally by the defendants
1 to 4 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the plaint,
till the date of realization. Hence, the present appeal.
8. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for the
appellants sought to impress upon this Court that the
judgment and decree is erroneous and not sustainable. Her
contention is that the amount of compensation is highly
excessive and the Trial Court erred in fixing the liability on the
appellants/defendants 1 to 3. She also contended that the
interest @ 7.5 % p.a. is on higher side. On a due
consideration of the submissions made and on appreciating
the evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to accept the
contentions advanced. First of all, the appellants/ defendant
Nos.1 to 3 remained exparte before Trial Court. Apart from
the same, the fact that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 sustained
injury to the right eye due to the act of the Teacher was
established and the learned Trail Judge rightly concluded that
as the defendant No.4 caused injury to the plaintiff/student in
the school during the course of employment, the
appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 to whom the 4th respondent is
sub-ordinate, are vicariously liable to pay the compensation to
the injury sustained by the plaintiff/respondent No.2.
9. Insofar as the arguments with reference to the
compensation, the learned Trial Court, considering evidence of
the PW.6-Doctor, the material on record and the injury
sustained by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 decreed the suit in
part. This Court on considering the matter is of the
considered opinion that neither the amount awarded nor the
interest are excessive and warrants no interference of this
Court.
For the aforegoing reasons, the appeal fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all
pending applications shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 09.09.2024
GVK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 09.09.2024
GVK
