The State Of A.P. vs Md. Akthar Sultana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6972 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.2354 of 1999

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree of

the trial Court in O.S.No.3 of 1996 dated 18.01.1999.

2. Suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of damages with

interest and costs against the State of Andhra Pradesh

represented by the District Collector, Warangal. The case of the

plaintiffs is that deceased Mohd.Yakub Ali is the husband of the

first plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs in the suit. He was

working as a driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AAT/2525

and his son Monsoor Ali as a cleaner of the lorry. On

29.11.1994 the said lorry was assigned for escorting the then

Minister for Municipal Affairs but it was blasted by the

extremists of Peoples War Group near Oorugonda bus stage by

the land-mine. The husband of the first plaintiff and her son

died in the said blast and lorry was damaged. A case in

Cr.No.120 of 1994 was registered by the Athmakur Police. The

Government/defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the

deceased as exgratia, but they have not paid damages of the

lorry. The value of the lorry was Rs.2,40,000/- at the time of

incident. Both the deceased were earning about Rs.15,000/- per

month by plying the lorry on hire and collectively contributing

Rs.5,000/- for the dependents and spending Rs.10,000/- for the

maintenance of the lorry. They could have contributed

Rs.60,000/- per year to the family. The deceased Md. Yakub Ali

was aged 50 years and his son was 18 years at the time of

incident, as such they are claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- as the Government already paid Rs.2,00,000/-

towards exgratia, claiming for grant of Rs.8,00,000/- out of

which Rs.5,60,000/- is claiming towards damages for loss of

earnings etc., and Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of lorry bearing

No.AAT/2525.

3. The trial Court examined wife of the deceased as P.W.1

and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and also examined D.W.1. After

considering evidence of both sides, arguments and citations

filed before the Court, suit was decreed for Rs.5,75,000/- with

costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

filing of the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by said

order present appeal is preferred.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that

plaintiffs failed to prove the value of the lorry and the trial Court

erred in granting damages to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/-. The

State has already paid exgratia to the deceased at the rate of

Rs.1,00,000/- to each of them, as such they are not entitled for

any further damages. The amount granted by the trial Court is

excessive without any basis. Therefore, requested the Court to

set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. Record is not available with the Court, as this matter is

pertaining to the year 1999, heard arguments of appellant

Counsel but the respondent Counsel is absent, as such it is

treated as there is no argument on behalf of the respondent

Counsel and reserved for Judgment.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly argued that

without any evidence on record the trial Court erred in granting

Rs.1,75,000/- towards damages of the lorry. At the time of

incident the value of lorry was not Rs.2,40,000/- as claimed by

plaintiffs. He also argued that there is no evidence on record to

establish the price of the lorry but the trial Court in the

Judgment observed basing on the evidence of P.W.1 made its

own presumption in the interest of justice and assessed value of

lorry as Rs.1,75,000/-.

7. Admittedly, the husband and son of the first plaintiff were

died in a blast and the lorry was also damaged beyond repairs.

Plaintiff No.1 who is examined as P.W.1 is not aware of the

other details of lorry and Court cannot expect the date of

purchase, make of lorry and price of the lorry from her after the

death of her husband. Admittedly, State engaged the lorry for

escorting then Minister for Municipal Affairs. When the

deceased husband and son of the first plaintiff were on duty

during the course of employment they died in a blast and

admittedly the lorry was also damaged. The State is opposing

the assessment of the lorry made by the trial Court stating that

amount granted was excessive but they have not filed any

document, in fact record is not available on the file of this

Court, as such after long lapse of time this Court finds no

reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Plaintiff

No.1 is the wife and other plaintiffs are children of the deceased

No.1 and their main livelihood is the lorry on which husband of

P.W.1 was working as driver and son as cleaner and the same

was damaged in a blast. The trial Court considering the

evidence of P.W.1 and the prevailing rate at that time rightly

arrived to the conclusion and granted Rs.1,75,000/- and this

Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. Therefore,

appeal devoid of merits and is dismissed. As the suit is filed in

the year 1996 and appeal is preferred in the year 1999,

appellant is directed to deposit the amount with interest within

three months from the date of this Judgment, on such deposit

respondents are permitted to withdraw the same.

In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the

Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.3 of 1996

dated 18.01.1999. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________

JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED: 26.12.2022

tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No.2354 of 1999

DATED:26 .12.2022

TRI