JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.68 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, are the appellants and the respondents herein are defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The 1st plaintiff is mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Manne Eswara Rao, husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 was working as Chief Chemist in Godavari Edible Bran Oil Limited, Dwarapudi. He was also consultant Chemist for Food and Fertilizer Units in the district and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by giving consultations. He was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,800/-. On 22-12-2000, the deceased Manne Eswara Rao was returning from Rajahmundry on his scooter bearing No.AP05M-4425 and when he reached Veerraju Mamidi around noon, a big branch of tree was cut and fell on the deceased. The deceased and his scooter were crushed under the branch of tree. Defendants 3 to 5 are contractors under the 2nd defendant and they were given contract work to widen roads. As part of their work, they employed coolies for cutting branches of trees, which were projecting into the road. The defendants 3 to 5 acted in negligent and irresponsible manner. The deceased was rushed to Gangireddi Nursing Home of Anaparthi. After he regained consciousness he was sent home. Though the deceased was taking medicines as prescribed by the doctor, his condition started deteriorating. On 30-12-2000, the deceased experienced difficulty in swallowing any food or liquids. So, he was taken to Alert Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry. In that hospital, the deceased succumbed to crush injuries on 01-01-2001. The deceased was aged 39 years. The 2nd defendant being principal employer is jointly and severally liable along with defendants 3 to 5 to pay compensation to the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/-.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 1st defendant, contending that in the tender-cum-auction held on 27-11-2000, uprooting and removal of live trees of various sizes in reaches from KM 27/20 to 65/0 of Kakinada – Rajahmundry road, S. Panduranga Rao of Eluru became the highest bidder and it was approved by the 2nd defendant on 05-12-2000. The Executive Engineer, R and B Division, Kakinada, issued work order to the said contractor vide proceedings dated 26-12-2000 and site was handed over to him on 26-12-2000. The alleged accident on 22-12-2000 was prior to work order given to the contractor. As such, the question of the Department making any supervision over work earlier to 26-12-2000 does not arise at all. The plaintiffs’ claim for damages is untenable. The 5th defendant was contractor for uprooting the removal of trees between KM 13/850 and 27/2 of Kakinada – Rajahmundry road. The defendants 3 and 4 are not at all contractors of the 2nd defendant for any works. There was no commencement of work for removal of trees by the date of accident.

5. The 3rd defendant did not file any written statement.

6. The 4th defendant filed a written statement contending that he is not at all the contractor for the work and that he was nothing to do with the same.

7. The 5th defendant filed a written statement contending that he is not a contractor and he has nothing to do with cutting of trees at Veerraju Mamidi and that no inquest or post-mortem was conducted to prove that the death of deceased was due to injuries received by him in the accident.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for Rs.12 lakhs with interest at 18% per annum as prayed for?

(2) Whether S. Panduranga Rao is a proper and necessary party to the suit as pleaded by the 2nd defendant and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties ? and

(3) To what relief ?

9. During the course of trial, on behalf of