KOMMURU KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arising out of a suit for damages against the State of Andhra Pradesh raises short but important questions of fact and law. The question of fact is, whether the accident resulting in the loss of the right wrist of the plaintiff was due to the negligence and rash driving of Mohiuddin, the road roller driver of the Highways department. The question of law which is of real importance is whether the Government is liable for this tortious act of its servant.

(2.) The facts of the case are few and may be shortly stated. On 15-12-1953, the plaintiff barely five years old was taken to his paternal uncles house near Satyanarayana Talkies. It was a busy commercial place in Tenali town within the school zone it was about 3-45 p. in. and the plaintiff was then easing near the door steps of the house on the north of the road. The motor road roller was then seen plying fast on the road from the west to the eastern direction.As it drew near the plaintiff felt a little under-tow of funk. He got up and was running into the house. But just then, the edge of the road roller struck him down and his right palm fell under the front wheel. The driver did not stop the engine forthwith. The result was the-hand of the boy was crushed up to the wrist. The boy was immediately rushed to a doctor nearby who gave him first aid. As per his advice, the boy was sent forthwith to the Government hospital where he was operated upon and his hand was amputated up to the wrist.The plaintiff was treated for injury 13 days as in-patient and about 2 months as outpatient. The driver gave a report of the accident to the police station on that very day. He however disappeared thereafter. His whereabouts remained untraceable. The plaintiff through his next friend gave a notice to the Government claiming damages for the permanent loss of his limb occasioned by the rash act of their servant. Then he brought a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, for recovery of Rs. 10,000.00by way of damages.

(3.) The Government in defence pleaded that the driver was not guilty of negligence or rash driving and the accident was inevitable, that even otherwise action in damages lay only against the driver and that the suit as against the Government for the tortious acts of its servants is untenable in law and further in any event, the damages claimed are excessive.