The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/Defendants (Respondents/Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are being minors rep. by RespondenUPlaintiff No.4) Kola Papaiah S/o. Gurvaiah, Age 46 yrs, Occ. Work lnspector, N.S.Canal, Nagulapati Annavarma Village, Penpahad mandal Jangiral Lingaiah S/o. Saidulu, Age 54 yrs, Occ Lascar R/o Nagaulapati Annavarma Village of Penpahad mandal, Nalgonda District. .RespondenuDefendants 4 & 5 l.A. NO: 3 OF 2012(ASMP. N O: '1966 OF 20121 Petition under Section 151 of CpC praytng that ir the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.2912004 dated i6.07.2010 on the frte of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda including executron proceedings in Ep I,Jo.34/20.12 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ivliryalaguda pending disposal cf the above appeai Counsel for the Appellants: SRt G THIRUPATHt REDDY, ASSISTANT GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K' SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.692 of2OL2 JUDGMENT: Chaiienging the judgment and decree dated 16'07'201O passed in O.S.No.29 of 2OO4 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 o[ the deceased Nakka Krishnaiah, filed the suit in forma pauperis seeking compensation of Rs' 10,00,000/- against the State Government and its ofhcials' 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 01'20O2' off-rcials 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 [ask, a concrete block from bcneath the sluice gate collapsed on him due to the allegecl negligence of the officials' resulting 2 SKS,J A.S.No.692 of 20l2 l in his dron'ning. His body was recovered only altt:r u'ate r flow was stoppe<I orr 2U.01.2OO2. The plaintiffs issucrl lcgal notices to the delenrlilr.l[s, but reccivcd no elfective response.

3. The c1r:fendants denied liability, assr:rting Lhat Krishnaiah aclcd on his own without departmen tzLl knowledgc or consent. 'fhev claimed that the sluice was r.lreadv closed by a contr:r(tc)r ()n 24.12.2OO1, and that the prcsence of the deceased at r he sitc u,as unauthorized. They al:;c, stated that thc suit ivas noL maintainable and attempte 1 to rely on documcnts inr:lr-rcling a leave application by the Work lnspector and a sluice closure agreement with a contractor Florvcvcr, thc trirrl Court found [hese documents, suspicious and lacking r:rcdibility

4. Basinq rrn the above pleadings, the trial ,lrurl framed fr>ur issues anrl r>r-r behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., P\\'s.1 to 3 werc cxzrmined and trx.Al to A8 are marked. DW';. 1 to 3 arc ex:rmined ancl Exs.B1 and B10 u,ere marked on Lrehalf of the delendants 3 SKS,J A.S.No.692 of 2O12

5. Upon evaluation of the evidence, including testimonles of PWs I to 3 and the inquest report, the Lrial Court held tt'at dclendants No.4 and 5 had in fact engaged the services of Krishnaiah and that the death occurred due to their negligence. Thc Court trial found the defense evidence and drlcumentstobeconcoctedattemptstoescapeliability. Accordingly, the trial Court held defendants Nos l to 5 jointly and sevcrally liabte, with personal liabitity on dcfendants Nos.4 and 5 and it awarded the plaintiffs Rs 6'61'000/ as ccrmpe nsation with proportionate costs and 9uh intercst from the date of suit till realization, granting the defendants [hrce Aggrieved thereby' the months' time to pay. appellants/ deicndant Nos. 1 to 3 filed the present Appeal Suit'

6. Heard Sri G. Thirupathi Reddy' learned Assistant Clovernment Pleader for Appeal appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri L' Prabhakar Reddy' learned counsel appcaring on behalf of the respondents' 7 . Learned Assistant Government ,SUbmitted that the judgment and decree of the tria Iaw, the weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case ourt were contrary to 4 SI(S,J 3.S.No.692 of 20t2 l \ and that thc trial Court failed to properly appr,:r:iatc the oral and docunrentary evidence adduced and did nrt apply the correct legal principles. He further submitted Lhat the enlire case was vierved from a u.holly erroneous persp( ctive and that the suit was not maintainablc in law and therc vras no cause of aclion against rhe defendants. He asser t(rd that the Irrigation Departrnent had ncvcr engaged thc services of the rieceased Krishnaiah for thc purpose of closing the 7-A sluice of the Nag:rrj u neisag.rr Projcct [,eft Canal, and t]-re aliegation that defendant N()s..+ and 5 lrad paid an advar rce amount of Rs.200/- was baseless. Hc cmphasized that dt ft:ndant No.4, rvho was the Work Inspcctor, was on leave on'25.O1.2OO2, and lhat clefendant No..5, rvho u,:rs a Lascar, was not in charge of the 7 A sluice on the relevernt day, as he was assigned lo a clilferent strct( h of thc canal. tt. Learncd Assist:rnt (lovernmcnt Pleader po nted out thal the Governmcnt h.rd alreadv orclered the stoppagr: of water in the Left Mairr Car-ral by 15.01 .2OO2, and that the 7-A sluice was, in fact, ck>scd on 24.l2.2OO I itself, well }lrrfore the date o[ the allegi:<l inr:ident. He argucd that thc slr- ir;e had been scaled by the ('ontra('Lor bl usir-rg sandbags, an< rence, therc 5 SKSIJ A.S.No.692 of 2012 was no occaslon or need for the deceased to be engaged for suchatask.Hefurthersubmittedthatdepartmentofllcials were not authorized to cngage outsiders like the dcceased Krishnaiah lor ope rating sluice shutters without permission from higher authorities, and even if the deceased had operated the sluice on his own, it was due to his own negligence' Therefore, the Government or its ofltcers could not be held responsible Learnecl Assistant Government Pleader contended that g. there was no practlce of engaging private individuats like the deceased for departmental works' and there was no conclusive or reliable evidence proving that Krishnaiah was ever engaged by any of the officials of the Nagarjunasagar Canals' Hence' hisaccidentatdeathwhileallegedlyattemptingtoremove debrisunderthesluicccouldnotgiverisetoaclaimfor damages of Rs. 1O,OO,O0O/- under heads like loss of estate' consortium, pain and suffering, funeral charges' and loss of dependency. He also pointed out that defendant Nos'4 and 5 had specifically denied hiring Krishnaiah or paying him any advance, and that defendant No'4 was on sanctioned leave on 6 SI{S,J A S.No.692 of 2012 ..1 the relevant date, while de[endant No.5 had no official responsibility over thc 7-A sluice 1O. Learned Assistant (lovernment Ple ader further contended that thc trial Court erred in relving on unsubstantiatcd and interestcd evidence to farjten personal liabitity on de iendant Nos.4 and 5 and vicarior rs liability on the State. FIc also criticized the application r,f principles under the Motor Vchicles Acl, particularly thc zrdoption of multiplier 18 based on the age o[ 30 years, whiclr .rccording to him was inzrppropriatc in the <:ontext of a civil suit unrelated to a motor vchicle accident zrnd thal the trial C,rurt ought to have accepte cl lhe delcnse evidcnce and documer t s marked as trxhibits B- I to 8-6 and disrnissed the suit, instead of decreeing it for a sum of Rs.6,61,00O/ - with 9')', interest per annum. Thcrefore, hc pravecl the Court to set zrs;irle the order o[ the trial Court by allowing this Appeal Suit. 1l. On thr: other hand, learncd counsel for thc respondents opposed the submissions madt' by thc lcarncd ccunsel for the appellant stating thal there \\.'a s no illegaliry.or infLrmig in its findings of tlx' Lrial Court and t hat thc trral Court , after proper 7 SKS,J A.S.No.692 of 2O12 appreciation of both oral and documcntary evidence, rightly concluded that delendants No.4 and 5 had engaged the services oI the deceased for clearing the sluice obstruction and that their negligent act dircctly resulted in his death. Since defendants No.4 and 5 were acting in the course of their employment under defendants Nos.l to 3, the latter were held vicariously liable. He furthcr submitted that the inquest report, FIR, and the consislent tcstimony of PWs. 1 to 3 clearly establishcd the cause of acrion and the role of defendants Nos.4 and 5.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the sluice was already closed and that defendant No.4 was on leave lacked credi bility and was unsupported by reliable records. The plea that private individuals cannot be engaged for departmental works was also untenable, particularly when it was evident that the ofllcials themselves had called the deceased for assistzrnce and that the trial Court rightly applied the principles of vicarious liability and the multiplier method while computing compensation, based on the age and income of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Appeal Suit. 8 SKS,J A -S.No.692 of 2012 -'!

13. The points that arise for consideration rn this appeal itre: I ll. IIl Whether the appcllants, along u'ith defendants No.4 and 5 in the trial Court, arc rcsponsrtrlc for the death of the deceased Krishnaiah anc, if so, whether the respondents are entitle(-1 [o compensation? Whether the deceascd opcrated the r;luice illegally without any pcrmission lrcrn the authorities? Whether the judgment and clccrcc of tl-e trial Court requires any interference i) Point Nos.i to iii:

74. In the light of thc submissions made trv ltoth the lcarned counsel and upon carcful pt:ruserl ol rhr: material available on record, it appears that the principal contention of the plaintifls was that dcfendants No.4 and 5, u ho were officials in the Irrigation Department, had cngaged the deceased to remove obstructions at the 7-A sh:i<:s. 2n6 16r, due to their negligence, he was trapped unclt:r a concrete block and drowned. On thc othcr hand, tlre appellants contended that there was n() rcqurremcnt fc,r engaging 9 SKS,J A.S.No.692 of 20l2 Krishnaiahonthedatcoftheincident,asthewaterflowhad already been stopped on 24 12'2OO1 and the sluice was closed by a con tracl or.

15. However, the evidence on record does not support the defense version. The testimony of PWs'2 and 3 corroborates thatofPW.l,establishingthatKrishnaiahhadbeenengaged on previous occasions for simtlar tasks and that his services were once again sought on 25'0I '2OO2 Tlne defense attempted to rely on Ex.B6, the leave apptication of defendant No'4' to show that he was not on dutv on the date of the incident' Yet' the said document lacked official endorsement such as an inward number or ofltce seal, raising doubts about its authenticity. The trial Court rightly concluded that the leave appiication appeared to be an afterthought and could not be accepted as conclusive evidcnce to disprove the version of the plaintiffs.

16. Further, the fact that the dead body of Krishnaiah could berecoveredonlyon2a.o|.2oo2,aftertheauthoritiesstopped the water flow upon a written request from the Sub-lnspector of Police, demonstrates that there r'r'as still active water flow 10 SKS,J ,\ S.No-692 of 2012 I on the date ol'the incident, conLrary to thc versi,;rr of DWs.I Lo 3. This asl)cct severely undermines the defcr.rsc c:lainr that Lhe sluice had been sealed and the water stoppcci ..i,::cks prior to the incidenr. 1'he inquest report (Ex..4-6), rhe I,.th,rItx.A_5), and the hnal report (Ex.A 8) also support the casc,rt thr. plaintilf and confirm that the death occurred due to rirr:u,ning u.hile the deceased \\ras attempting to clear the sluicc. i I thc request of the officizrls

17. As lo thc compensation, the trial Court r.,rrrsiclerred the monrhly earnings of the deceased to bc Rs.4,000/ , a rcasonable estimate in the absence of formill r:1.)orn., proof, based on the nature of his work as a mason arrtrl un<lcrwate r diver. After dcducting i/3rd towards personal t xpcnses and applying the m ultiplicr of 18 (appropriate lor t hr rge bracket o[ 30 years), lhe trial Court arrived at a coml).]nsation of Rs.5,75,856i - under the hcad of loss ol- rlcpendenc_r.. A<lditionally, sums were rightly awarded undcr othcr hcads such as consortium, funeral expenses, and pain rr rrl sulTering, amounting in toLal to Rs.6,6 I ,0OO/ _. Although tlrc appcllants challenged tl-re lack of proof regarding incomr:, ll)e ilmount - *.. d --l".%6w:rqeffi[*I-''Wtnffi- 11 SKS,J A.s.No-692 of 2012 considered by the trial Court was modest and within reasonable limits

18. Therefore, this Court does not find any tllegality or irregularity in the hndings of the trial Court either with respect to the determination of liability or computation of compensation. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law, and thc conclusions drau-n arc well founded and supported by the rccord Therc are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed'

19. Accordingly, this Appcat Suit is dismissed confirming and decree dated 16.07 2O\O passed in Civil Judge, 2OO4 bY the learncd Senior the judgment O.S.No.29 of Miryalaguda. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applicarions, if any pcnding' shall stand closed SD/- N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER I To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda 2. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri L Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Coptes 'lrL ,{I]K/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0510812025 JUDGMENT AS.No.692 of 2012 ') , O ) AT o ,,.. tt\t\ N6 t - -..,_:')i -_:--- .tl _!-- \. :. -h,r/ ;v OISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS l0b5- t 3385 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA FIRST APPEAL NO: 692 OF 2012 Between:

1. The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation (l and CAD) Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda, - 3. The Executive Engineer, NS., Canal, Miryalguda ...AppellanuDefendants 1 to 3 AND 1 2 3 4 Nakka Chandrakala D/o. Late Krrshnaiah, Age 15 yrs, Occ Student Nakka Jyothi D/o. Late Krishnaiah, Age 14 yrs, Occ Student Nakka Saidulu s/o. Late Krishnaiah, Age 11 yrs, Occ Nil Nakka Janakamma Wo. Late Krishnaiah, Age 31 yrs, Occ Household ... Respondents/Defendants (Respondents/Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are being minors rep- by RespondenUPlaintiff No.4) Kola Papaiah S/o. Gurvaiah, Age 46 yrs, Occ: Work lnspector, N.S.Canal, Nagulapati Annavarma Village, Penpahad mandal t) Jangiral Lingaiah S/o. Saidulu, Age 54 yrs, Occ Lascar R/o Nagaulapati Annavarma Village of Penpahad mandal, Nalgonda District. Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 16-7 -2010 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. ...RespondenUDefendants 4 & 5 ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Thirupathi Reddy, Assistant GP For Appeals and of Sri L Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the .Judgment and decree dated 16 07 2010 passed in O.S.No. 29 of 20:04 Oy th,_. Senior Ctuir jrjg-", Miryalag uda.

2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeat . SD/- N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The S_enior Civi Judge, l\,4iryalaguda 2. Two CD Coptes ABK/I'}SL HIGH COURT DATED: 05lOBl2O25 DECREE AS.No.692 of 2012 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS tp6