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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
1994 (4) SCC 1
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
AIR 1989 AP 235
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
AIR 1997 SC 610
1994 (1) ALT 341
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
(2000 (6) ALD 17
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
