THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, being the widow and three minor children of the deceased Nakka Krishnaiah, filed the suit in forma pauperis seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the State Government and its officials. The deceased Krishnaiah, aged about 39 years, was a skilled swimmer and diver, who earned his livelihood through agricultural work, masonry, and underwater tasks. On 25.01.2002, officials of the Irrigation Department/defendants Nos.4 and 5 - Work Inspector and Lascar allegedly requested Krishnaiah to remove debris obstructing the closure of the 7-A sluice gate at Ravulapenta village under Nagarjuna Sagar Project. While performing the task, a concrete block from beneath the sluice gate collapsed on him due to the alleged negligence of the officials, resulting in his drowning. His body was recovered only after water flow was stopped on 28.01.2002. The plaintiffs issued legal notices to the defendants, but received no effective response.

3. The defendants denied liability, asserting that Krishnaiah acted on his own without departmental knowledge or consent. They claimed that the sluice was already closed by a contractor on 24.12.2001, and that the presence of the deceased at the site was unauthorized. They also stated that the suit was not maintainable and attempted to rely on documents including a leave application by the Work Inspector and a sluice closure agreement with a contractor. However, the trial Court found these documents suspicious and lacking credibility.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. DWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. Upon evaluation of the evidence, including testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and the inquest report, the trial Court held that defendants No.4 and 5 had in fact engaged the services of Krishnaiah and that the death occurred due to their negligence. The Court trial found the defense evidence and documents to be concocted attempts to escape liability. Accordingly, the trial Court held defendants Nos.1 to 5 jointly and severally liable, with personal liability on defendants Nos.4 and 5 and it awarded the plaintiffs Rs.6,61,000/- as compensation with proportionate costs and 9% interest from the date of suit till realization, granting the defendants three months’ time to pay. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed the present Appeal Suit. 6. Heard Sri G. Thirupathi Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeal appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court were contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case and that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced and did not apply the correct legal principles. He further submitted that the entire case was viewed from a wholly erroneous perspective and that the suit was not maintainable in law and there was no cause of action against the defendants. He asserted that the Irrigation Department had never engaged the services of the deceased Krishnaiah for the purpose of closing the 7-A sluice of the Nagarjunasagar Project Left Canal, and the allegation that defendant Nos.4 and 5 had paid an advance amount of Rs.200/- was baseless. He emphasized that defendant No.4, who was the Work Inspector, was on leave on 25.01.2002, and that defendant No.5, who was a Lascar, was not in charge of the 7-A sluice on the relevant day, as he was assigned to a different stretch of the ca