T. NOKTANG, G.B. Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tali Aao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Nagaland representing the State respondents. None appears for the proforma respondent.

(2.) The petitioner's case in brief is that he is a Gaon Burah in Longleng Town of Nagaland and a businessman by occupation. On 03.12.2008 when the petitioner, being accompanied by other workers engaged in the work of construction of a residential building of the proforma respondent, was taking rest on the ground by the side of the brick boundary wall fencing of the office of the respondent No. 4, a portion of the wall suddenly collapsed and fell upon the petitioner and another person named Lingpa Phom causing grievous injury to both the persons. It has been stated that the petitioner had suffered fracture and lumbosacral spine injuries besides suffering blunt injuries on the head and abdomen. Soon after the incident, the petitioner was rushed to the District Hospital at Longleng and after the initial treatment given to him at the hospital, the petitioner was discharged from the said hospital on 06.12.2008 referring him to Dr. Imkongliba Memorial District Hospital, Mokokchung for better treatment.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that although he had suffered grievous injuries in the said incident yet, due to financial problems he could not go outside for better treatment and had to remain satisfied with the treatment rendered by the local 'Kabiraj'. During the course of such treatment the condition of the petitioner deteriorate further as a result of which he was advised to go for better medical treatment, which he could not afford. The petitioner has further stated that owing to the injuries suffered in the incident of wall collapse that had taken place on 03.12.2008, the petitioner had to remain bedridden for almost 3 months but still could not recover completely and is presently suffering from pain in his lower body preventing the petitioner from doing hard physical work. Thus, according to the petitioner, the accident has resulted into permanent physical disablement to the extent of 30%. The petitioner has also stated that during the course of treatment he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/-. However, due to lack of ignorance no bill or voucher of such medical expenditure has been retained by him. It has further been stated that due to ignorance of the petitioner no FIR had been lodged reporting the said incident to the police.