Judgment 1. The unsuccessful defendants had preferred this second appeal assailing the decree and judgment 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 1st 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. 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 1st 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 2nd defendant had adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant. The defence stated by the 1st 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 plaintiffs. As already noted the Court of first appeal had allowed the appeal and had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and had awarded compensation, which is more than the amount claimed. Hence, the defendants are before this Court. 5. On merits, the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. As already noted the Court of first appeal had allowed the appeal and had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and had awarded compensation, which is more than the amount claimed. Hence, the defendants are before this Court. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record. 5. (a) The learned Government Pleader would contend that the judgment of the Court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the Court of first appeal had failed to note that the death of the deceased was on account of an ‘Act of God’ and that, therefore, the Court below was not justified in reversing the well considered decree and judgment of the trial Court both on facts and on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. 5. (b) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents had supported the judgment of the Court below stating that the plea of ‘Act of God’ was not taken in the written statement and that as rightly held by the Court below, the trial Court had not properly appreciated the facts, the evidence and the law applicable and that, therefore, the Court of first appeal is justified in reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court and in decreeing the suit and granting just and fair compensation to the plaintiffs as per facts and law. 6. (a) The first contention raised is that the Senor Civil Judge’s Court at Karimnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the relief, but, the learned I Additional District Judge, who had failed to properly consider the issue of territorial jurisdiction, had erroneously held that the said Court is having jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the deceased who was travelling on a Scooter had died on the spot when a tree on the road side fell upon him. On a report, the Station House Officer, Huzurabad Police Station had registered a crime. So the death had occurred at Thummannapalli village, which is at a distance of 3 KMs from Huzurabad. In the case on hand, the deceased who was travelling on a Scooter had died on the spot when a tree on the road side fell upon him. On a report, the Station House Officer, Huzurabad Police Station had registered a crime. So the death had occurred at Thummannapalli village, which is at a distance of 3 KMs from Huzurabad. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government pleader is that the said village is within the territorial jurisdictional limits of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurababd and that, therefore, the cause of action has arisen for the plaintiffs within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court at Huzurababd and hence, the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, this contention was not accepted by the Court below. The suit was brought against the State represented by the District Collector, Karimnagar and the Superintendent Engineer, R & B, Karimnagar Circle. Both the defendants are having Offices at Karimnagar i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar. The plaintiffs are also residents of Karimnagar City. This is not a suit concerning immovable property to be instituted at a place where the subject matter is situated. This is a money suit for compensation. The provision of law under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “20. The plaintiffs are also residents of Karimnagar City. This is not a suit concerning immovable property to be instituted at a place where the subject matter is situated. This is a money suit for compensation. The provision of law under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises – Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – (a) the defendant or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carried on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” So the present suit for compensation instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, within the territorial jurisdiction of which the defendants have their offices cannot be said to be not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the first contention is devoid of merit. 6. (b) The learned Government pleader next forcefully contended that the accident is a result of ‘Act of God and not on account of the negligence of the 1st defendant or his subordinates and that, therefore, the defendants cannot be fastened with any liability to pay any compensation. He would further contend as follows: “Even according to the plaint averments, at the time when the deceased travelled on his scooter on a highway towards Warangal from Karimnagar there were cold and severe winds blowing and that the blowing of the severe winds is the cause for the fall of the tree on the deceased. He would further contend as follows: “Even according to the plaint averments, at the time when the deceased travelled on his scooter on a highway towards Warangal from Karimnagar there were cold and severe winds blowing and that the blowing of the severe winds is the cause for the fall of the tree on the deceased. The then Executive Engineer, who was examined as DW1, had also stated in his evidence that the deceased died on the night of 01.04.2002 due to fall of a tree on him on account of winds and rain and that on account of the heavy winds the tree was uprooted. Therefore, the deceased ought not to have undertaken a journey on such night when the weather was unfriendly and hence, the deceased himself has contributed by his sole negligence to the alleged accident and there is no negligence on the part of the officers of the 1st defendant or the officers of the department.” However, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that only cold winds were blowing and there was neither storm nor heavy wind blowing at that time and that it is in evidence that there is a hole in trunk of the tree that had fallen on the deceased and that, therefore, the defendants should have known that to allow the said tree by the road side is dangerous and, therefore, they ought to have taken necessary precautions and ought to have removed the tree to prevent any injury to persons passing by the road; but, the defendants failed to do so; and hence, they cannot escape the liability for the injury resulting in the death of the deceased on account of the fall of the tree in a dangerous condition existing on the road side. 6. (c) Coming to the relevant evidence on record, the PW1 had reiterated the pleaded case in his evidence and he had further examined PWs2 and 3 to corroborate his version. All the witnesses had consistently stated that the reason for the fall of tree is cold winds and that the tree that had fallen was having a big hole in its trunk at the base. Their evidence goes to show that the said tree was not firmly rooted in the earth and had become very weak and is unable to bear its own huge weight. Exhibit A3 is the crime detail form. Their evidence goes to show that the said tree was not firmly rooted in the earth and had become very weak and is unable to bear its own huge weight. Exhibit A3 is the crime detail form. The said document also would show that the tree which had fallen upon the deceased was having a hole at its base. DW1 had also admitted in his cross examination that the tree which had fallen on the deceased was having a hole. PW3 in his evidence had stated to the effect that except the tree which had fallen on the deceased, no other tree, in the vicinity of the accident, had fallen on that night. Therefore, the evidence on record is sufficient to come to a safe conclusion that the tree had fallen due to the hole in the base of it’s trunk and also due to its weak condition but not solely on account of the cold severe winds and rain on the night of the accident. 6. (d) Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st defendant and his Officers who are supposed to maintain the roads and the road margins in good and safe condition for the users of the road should have carried out periodical inspection of the trees and should have taken safety precautions to see that the road was safe for its users and any adjoining trees in the road margins, which were dried up and dead which could be dangerous to passers by, are removed. The same having not been done, it follows that the officers of the 1st defendant department/the State had neglected to discharge their duties. Having thus carefully examined the facts, the circumstances and the evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the Court below that the fall of the tree on the deceased was on account of the negligence of the defendants and that the defendants are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased, were arrived at on proper and correct appreciation of the facts, the evidence and the law; and, therefore, this Court finds itself in entire agreement with the said findings. 6. 6. (e) The view of this court that in a case of this nature the defendants can be made liable to pay damages in tort finds support from the ratio in the decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi (1999 ACJ 801). The facts of the cited case are as follows: “On one evening one Suresh Chander and his brother travelled on a scooter from their office to their residence. When they were passing against Sant Parmanand Blind Relief Mission Building situate at 20, Alipur Road, a branch of a neem tree standing there had suddenly broken down and fell on the head of the Suresh Chander who is driving the vehicle. His head was crushed in the incident and he succumbed to the injury while receiving treatment in the hospital. A piece of wood was found embedded in his brain. His widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter had filed a claim for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.” In the above stated factual background, the High Court had decided the suit on the original side and had held that the Municipal Corporation is liable to pay the damages in tort and granted a decree in part. The Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation but at the same time had partly allowed the appeal of the claimant and enhanced the compensation. Both the sides have preferred further appeals to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed both the appeals. Following the precedential guidance, it can safely be concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim compensation from the defendants. 6. (f) Be it noted that a compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- was awarded by the Court below to the parents of the deceased. In fact, the claimants had claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. There is no substantial question of law formulated on the aspect of the quantum of compensation. The learned I Additional District Judge by adopting the multiplier method, which is generally followed in motor vehicle accident claims, and by following the precedential guidance in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation Ltd., ( 2009(3) ALD 83 ) had determined the compensation. The learned I Additional District Judge by adopting the multiplier method, which is generally followed in motor vehicle accident claims, and by following the precedential guidance in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation Ltd., ( 2009(3) ALD 83 ) had determined the compensation. In the well considered view of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot also be said that the compensation awarded is excessive. 7. Viewed thus, this Court finds that there is no merit in this second appeal and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall also stand dismissed. The defendants are given two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to deposit the said amount into the Court. On such deposit the plaintiffs are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount in equal proportion. On failure of the defendants to deposit the amount, the plaintiffs are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the procedure established by law.