THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Second Appeal No.1200 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

The unsuccessful defendants had preferred this second appeal assailing the decree and judgement dated 27.04.2012 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar passed in AS.No.46 of 2009 whereby the learned Additional District Judge while allowing the said appeal had set aside the decree and judgment dated 26.06.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in OS.No.76 of 2004 filed by the plaintiffs claiming damages/compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest and costs.

2. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court had taken note of the substantial questions of law raised in the ground nos.5 and 6 of the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the said questions are as follows:

(i) Whether the appellants are liable to pay the compensation awarded by the first appellate Court due to the death of the deceased on account of Act of God or on account of a tree has fallen on him due to which the deceased died?

(ii) Whether the 1^st appellate Court is justified in reversing the well considered finding record by the trial Court with regard to territorial jurisdiction?

[Reproduced verbatim]

3. To adjudicate the lis and answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to refer to the cases of the parties in brief.

3. (a) The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows: - ‘The plaintiffs are the parents of Chinta Natraj, the deceased. The said Chinta Nataraj used to run an Oil Mill of his own in Kattarampur locality of Karimnagar and used to earn Rs.57,000/- per annum. He was also a student of first year Law in Justice Kumaraiah College of Law at Karimnagar. He was a bachelor. On 01.04.2002 at about 12:00 noon, he went to his friend’s house at Warangal on his LML Vespa [Scooter] bearing no. AP 15 F 6791. While returning, on the same night, he was proceeding on his said scooter on Hanamkonda- Rayapatnam A.P State Highway. On the way, when his scooter reached the outskirts of Thummannapalli village at about 08:00 PM one old and big Pipal tree, which was within the boundary of the highway, fell on the deceased due to severe winds blowing at that time. On that, the deceased died instantaneously on the spot having sustained a head injury besides other injuries. Therefore, the State/the second defendant who is the owner of the State Highway and the Superintendent Engineer, R & B Karimnagar Circle/the first defendant, who is responsible for the maintenance of the roads, are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest and costs to the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased. The 1^st defendant did not take proper care about the maintenance of the trees on the side of the highway and had failed to remove the trees which have become dangerous to the public travelling on the road. On a report, the Station House officer of Huzurabad police station had registered a case in crime No.52 of

2002 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.’

3. (b) The 2^nd defendant had adopted the written statement of the

1^st defendant. The defence stated by the 1^st defendant in the written statement, in brief, is as follows: - “The material allegations in the plaint are false. The plaintiffs had first filed a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and had later filed the present suit as the provisions of the said Act are not attracted to the case on hand. The defendants are not responsible for the fall of the tree. The deceased had died due to his negligence as he had continued his journey when the winds were blowing and as he was aware of the consequences. In any view of the matter, the claim is excessive and the defendants are not liable to pay any amount.”

4. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and no documents were exhibited. On merits, the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaint