JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.68 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, are the appellants and the respondents herein are defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: The 1st plaintiff is mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Manne Eswara Rao, husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 was working as Chief Chemist in Godavari Edible Bran Oil Limited, Dwarapudi. He was also consultant Chemist for Food and Fertilizer Units in the district and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by giving consultations. He was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,800/-. On 22-12-2000, the deceased Manne Eswara Rao was returning from Rajahmundry on his scooter bearing No.AP05M-4425 and when he reached Veerraju Mamidi around noon, a big branch of tree was cut and fell on the deceased. The deceased and his scooter were crushed under the branch of tree. Defendants 3 to 5 are contractors under the 2nd defendant and they were given contract work to widen roads. As part of their work, they employed coolies for cutting branches of trees, which were projecting into the road. The defendants 3 to 5 acted in negligent and irresponsible manner. The deceased was rushed to Gangireddi Nursing Home of Anaparthi. After he regained consciousness he was sent home. Though the deceased was taking medicines as prescribed by the doctor, his condition started deteriorating. On 30-12-2000, the deceased experienced difficulty in swallowing any food or liquids. So, he was taken to Alert Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry. In that hospital, the deceased succumbed to crush injuries on 01-01-2001. The deceased was aged 39 years. The 2nd defendant being principal employer is jointly and severally liable along with defendants 3 to 5 to pay compensation to the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/-. 4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 1st defendant, contending that in the tender-cum-auction held on 27-11-2000, uprooting and removal of live trees of various sizes in reaches from KM 27/20 to 65/0 of Kakinada – Rajahmundry road, S. Panduranga Rao of Eluru became the highest bidder and it was approved by the 2nd defendant on 05-12-2000. The Executive Engineer, R and B Division, Kakinada, issued work order to the said contractor vide proceedings dated 26-12-2000 and site was handed over to him on 26-12-2000. The alleged accident on 22-12-2000 was prior to work order given to the contractor. As such, the question of the Department making any supervision over work earlier to 26-12-2000 does not arise at all. The plaintiffs’ claim for damages is untenable. The 5th defendant was contractor for uprooting the removal of trees between KM 13/850 and 27/2 of Kakinada – Rajahmundry road. The defendants 3 and 4 are not at all contractors of the 2nd defendant for any works. There was no commencement of work for removal of trees by the date of accident. 5. The 3rd defendant did not file any written statement. 6. The 4th defendant filed a written statement contending that he is not at all the contractor for the work and that he was nothing to do with the same. 7. The 5th defendant filed a written statement contending that he is not a contractor and he has nothing to do with cutting of trees at Veerraju Mamidi and that no inquest or post-mortem was conducted to prove that the death of deceased was due to injuries received by him in the accident. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for Rs.12 lakhs with interest at 18% per annum as prayed for? (2) Whether S. Panduranga Rao is a proper and necessary party to the suit as pleaded by the 2nd defendant and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties ? and (3) To what relief ? 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined herself as P.W.1 and she also got examined P.Ws.2 to 7 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-12 and X-1 to X-6. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-3 to B-7 were marked on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. The 5th defendant was examined himself as D.W.3 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2 on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the defendants 3 and 4. 10. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-3 to B-7 were marked on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. The 5th defendant was examined himself as D.W.3 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2 on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the defendants 3 and 4. 10. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs, against which the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. 11. Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for respondents/defendants. 12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that even though the plaintiffs proved their case, the trial Court came to wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in holding that there was no medical evidence on record to show that the deceased sustained crush injuries, much less internal injuries and he would further contend that there was an ample evidence on record to prove the case of plaintiffs and that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 13. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 14. Now, the points for determination are: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit ? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and 3. To what extent ? 15. Points 1 and 2:- Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit ? and Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? The case of plaintiffs is that in road widening work, there was cutting of branches of trees at Veerraju Mamidi without taking any precautions and without putting up any sign boards or flags on road and that therefore, a cut-off branch of tree fell on the deceased who was going on the road on 22-12-2000 on his scooter bearing No.AP05M-4425 and sustained injuries and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 01-01-2001 at Alert Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry. 16. 16. The contention of plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Manne Eswara Rao. The relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased is not in dispute by both parties to the suit. The plaintiffs in this case are claiming damages of Rs.12,00,000/- for the alleged negligence of defendants. The suit is filed in the year 2002. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in those days is a huge amount, therefore, the burden heavily rests on the plaintiffs to prove their case and they are not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case of defendants. 17. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. P.W.1 is none other than the 1st plaintiff in the suit. Her evidence is nothing but plaint allegations in the plaint. As stated supra, the plaintiffs are claiming huge amount of damages of Rs.12,00,000/- way back in the year 2001, in the year 2001, certainly the said Rs.12,00,000/- amount is a huge amount. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that the death of deceased was direct result of injuries sustained in the incident of a branch of tree falling on him. The plaintiffs also supposed to prove the crush injuries or internal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased in the alleged incident. Admittedly, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident and she is not accompanying her husband on the same scooter at the time of the alleged incident. She filed Ex.A-1 photograph of cut branch of tree which fell on the scooter of her husband. Ex.A-1 goes to show that the cut branch of tree had fallen on a scooter and the said tree is also visible in Ex.A-1 photo. 18. P.W.2 is a photographer who photographed the alleged scene of offence. He deposed in his evidence that one Surya Narayana, Journalist of Eenadu Newspaper, came to him and requested to take photographs of an incident spot at Veerraju Mamidi and accordingly he accompanied him to Veerraju Mamidi and found a big branch of tree fallen on the ground and scooter crushed under the branch and several people standing there. His evidence clearly goes to show that he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. His evidence clearly goes to show that he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. His evidence goes to show that he witnessed the damaged scooter and tree at the place of alleged incident. Admittedly, by the time of taking photographs by P.W.2, the deceased was not there. As per the case of plaintiffs, after sustained injuries, he immediately proceeded to a local private hospital for treatment and later he was discharged on the same day and went to his house. 19. P.W.3, who is alleged to be an eyewitness to the alleged incident, deposed in his evidence that on 22-12-2000 while he was in fields along with one Basivi Reddy, at that time for road widening a road contractor is getting the trees felled situated on either side of the road. The deceased was coming on a scooter and a big branch of tree was fallen by the coolies and it fell on the deceased, as a result he was crushed under the tree along with the scooter. Immediately, he along with Basivi Reddy went along with coolies pulled out the deceased from under the branch of tree. In his evidence in crossexamination, he stated that he is not having any own land and he did not give any complaint to the Police and the Police also did not enquire him. Another crucial admission made by him is that he is not having any land and he had no necessity to go to the said land on 22-12-2000. Therefore, his evidence does not inspire any confidence to prove the alleged incident. 20. P.W.4, another witness of the plaintiffs, deposed in his evidence that on 22-12-2000 while he was going on a scooter to Mandapeta and when he reached Veerraju Mamidi, he found gathering and a scooter crushed under a fallen branch of tree. Then he stopped and enquired and came to know about the alleged incident. His evidence goes to show that he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. 21. P.Ws.5 and 7 are the doctors who treated the deceased after 9 days of the alleged incident in Alert Emergency Hospital at Rajahmundry. 22. As stated supra, on the date of alleged incident, immediately the deceased was rushed to Gangi Reddy Hospital at Anaparthi and after he regained consciousness, he was sent to home on the same day. 21. P.Ws.5 and 7 are the doctors who treated the deceased after 9 days of the alleged incident in Alert Emergency Hospital at Rajahmundry. 22. As stated supra, on the date of alleged incident, immediately the deceased was rushed to Gangi Reddy Hospital at Anaparthi and after he regained consciousness, he was sent to home on the same day. For the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs did not disclose the name of local doctor at Anaparthi who treated the deceased immediately after the incident on the same day. The plaintiffs did not disclose the name of alleged doctor at Anaparthi, who treated the deceased immediately on the date of alleged incident. Certainly it is a fatal to the case of plaintiffs. Admittedly, after the alleged incident, the deceased was not taken to any Government Hospital for treatment. Subsequently, after a lapse of 9 days when serious problem arose in swallowing food and liquids, the deceased was rushed to Alert Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry, on 30-12-2000. As stated supra, P.Ws.5 and 7 are the doctors, who are working in Alert Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry, treated the deceased. As per the evidence of P.W.5, on 30-12-2000 the deceased joined in their hospital as in-patient complaining difficulty in swallowing and stiff back due to hit by a fallen tree on the road. P.W.7 also deposed that he treated Manne Eswara Rao from 30-12-2000 to 01-01-2001 and the deceased was treated by giving Tetanus, Immunoglobulin because of symptoms and signs diagnosed by them to the effect that he was suffering from Tetanus. As per his evidence, the patient died in his hospital after two days of treatment. As per his evidence, the cause of death is suspected as Tetanus. The evidence of P.W.7 clearly goes to show that he gave treatment to the patient for Tetanus on the basis of symptoms. Therefore, the cause of death of Eswara Rao was not yet clear. The evidence on record fails to prove that the cause of death of deceased Eswara Rao was due to Tetanus. As stated supra, as per the evidence of P.W.7, the deceased died because of suspected Tetanus. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is no certain medical finding so as to cause of death of deceased. There is absolutely no medical evidence on record to show that the deceased sustained any crush injuries, much less internal injuries. As stated supra, as per the evidence of P.W.7, the deceased died because of suspected Tetanus. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is no certain medical finding so as to cause of death of deceased. There is absolutely no medical evidence on record to show that the deceased sustained any crush injuries, much less internal injuries. Furthermore, Ex.X-1 goes to show that the patient was discharged at the request of attendants against the medical advice. But P.W.7 stated that the attendants thereafter kept the patient in that hospital only. Ex.X-1 goes to show that on 31-12-2000 at 5.45 a.m., the patient had severe spasmodic attack and went into cardio respiratory arrest and subsequently he was revived. As per Ex.X-1, the patient developed cardio pulmonary arrest and he was declared dead on 01-01-2001 at 09.00 a.m. Ex.X-1 is the case sheet of deceased. Therefore, the material on record goes to show that the deceased was not having any crush injuries or any internal injuries. Admittedly, no inquest or post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of deceased to prove that the cause of death is due to the injuries received by him in the alleged incident. 23. To disprove the case of plaintiffs, the defendants 1 and 2 relied on the documentary evidence and so also the oral evidence. D.W.1 is the Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, West Sub Division. His evidence is only based on the documentary evidence in his office and he is not having any personal knowledge about the alleged incident. D.W.2 is the then Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Biccavolu. Exs.B-3 to B-6 are marked through him. As per the evidence of D.W.2, the auction was held on 27-11-2000 and the said work was entrusted to S. Pandu Ranga Rao, Contractor, on 26-12-2000. As stated supra, the alleged incident was happened on 22-12-2000. A specific pleading was taken by the defendants in the written statement that the tender-cum-auction was held on 27-11-2000, the same was accepted on 05-12-2000 in favour of S. Pandu Ranga Rao of Eluru for uprooting and removal of live trees from Kms 27/2 to 65/0 of Kakinada – Rajahmundry road and that the Executive Engineer gave work order and handed over the same to the Contractor on 26-12-2000 only. As stated supra, the alleged incident was taken place on 22-12-2000. As stated supra, the alleged incident was taken place on 22-12-2000. Ex.B-5 is the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, Kakinada to S. Pandu Ranga Rao of Eluru. Ex.B-6 is the proceedings dated 26-12-2000 said to have been issued by the Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Kakinada, permitting S. Pandu Ranga Rao to cut the branches of trees because he was the highest bidder in an open auction conducted by the defendants. In the written statement itself, the defendants have taken a specific plea that S. Pandu Ranga Rao, being the auction purchaser of the trees, is a proper and necessary party to the suit, but the plaintiffs did not implead him as a party to the suit. Even though a specific defence was taken by the defendants in the written statement itself, the plaintiffs did not venture to add S. Pandu Ranga Rao as a party to the suit. Therefore, certainly it is a fatal to the case of plaintiffs. 24. Admittedly, no proof or no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to show that the death of deceased was direct result of the injuries sustained in the alleged incident of a branch of tree fallen on him. Admittedly, no inquest or no postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of deceased to prove that the cause of death is due to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged incident. The plaintiffs also did not file any document and so also did not produce any evidence to show that the defendants 3 to 5 were actually engaged in cutting operation of the branches of trees which fallen on the deceased on 22-12-2000. The evidence of D.W.3 goes to show that the 5th defendant has nothing to do with the alleged incident and he has no connection whatsoever with the work spot at Veerraju Mamidi and he was entrusted with the work of cutting trees from Samalkot to Peda Devabrahmam. 25. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case, consequently they are not entitled to any damages claimed by them. On appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 26. On appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 26. Point No.3:- To what extent ? Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29-9-2006, in O.S.No.68 of 2002, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Considering the circumstances of the case, I order each party to bear their own costs in the appeal.