THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.2499 of 1992 and Cross Objections No.10337 of 1993 COMMON JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs in O.S.No.24 of 1988 are the appellants herein. The suit was one filed for recovery of Rs.51,120/- for the damages caused to the crops of the plaintiffs. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiffs are the owners and cultivators of the land in Sy.Nos.276/B and 276/A at Maredupaka village of Ramagundam Mandal. The defendant Corporation is engaged in the production of fertilizers in the factory run by the defendant for the last 10 years. The defendant, in process of manufacture of fertilizer, discharges poisonous effluents viz. ammonia water mixed with other chemicals and the same is being stored in a reservoir of the defendant and due to the gross negligent act of the defendant and its employees, the stored poisonous chemical water overflows the reservoir and passes through the said lands of the plaintiffs and caused damage to the paddy crop raised in 1987 kharif season in an area of 8-00 acres in Sy.No.276/B and 4-00 acres in Sy.No.276/A therein as well as fertility of the said lands. The damage to the paddy crops and fertility of the said lands is due to the gross negligence, which is on the part of the defendant and its employees and the above damage was forcible by the defendant and its employees, is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act of the defendant in allowing overflow of poisonous effluents water mixed with chemical from the reservoir and allowing to pass from the said wet land of the plaintiffs causing damage to the paddy crops as well as the fertility of the wet lands. A legal notice was issued claiming a compensation of Rs.5,000/- per acre but the defendant did not give any reply. The plaintiffs are also made a representation on 18.01.1988 to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapalli requesting him to make inspection of the said lands and assess the damages to the standing paddy crops at that time. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapalli made inspection of the said lands and assessed the damage of standing paddy crops due to passing of poisonous effluents mixed with chemical water overflowed from the reservoir of the defendant company, at Rs.4,260/- per acre. Hence, the suit. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint about the damages. It was further pleaded that the Environmental Engineer of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and officials of the defendant made a joint inspection on 01.12.1987 and an enquiry report was submitted finding that there was no evidence of damage of the crops due to the fault of the defendant and if any damage is there the reasons have to be verified. It was the finding of the committee that the eucalyptus plants are not damaged and were found in a healthy condition. The samples of the effluents were collected on 02.12.1987 at evaporation pond and at the stagnated water and sent for analysis to the laboratory of the Board, Secunderabad to know the effluent quality in the presence of the members of the committee. The report of the analysis shows that the samples taken from the pools of water near the paddy field and the stagnated water available nearby has not indicated any abnormal contents of pollutants which are capable of withering the paddy field. The General Manager of the defendant had submitted the report to the District Collector through his letter No.RMG/T8/28-1/76 dated 9/11.01.1988 based on the finding of the report of the Chamical analysis by the laboratory of the Board. The defendant has no knowledge or no notice of any inspection for the assessment of damages to the standing paddy crop by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapalli and who is not the competent authority to say that the damage was caused due to passing of effluents overflowing from the reservoir and passing the lands of the plaintiffs. The Environmental Engineer of A.P. Pollution Board is the competent authority and the findings of the said Engineer do not support the case of the plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs is false and the quantum of damage assessed by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapalli is without any basis, fictitious and imaginary. Therefore, the defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of the lands in Survey Nos.276/B and 276/A? 2. Whether the discharged poisonous ammonia water passed through the suit lands and caused damage to the paddy crop and effected the fertility of the suit land by overflowing from the reservoir? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. After considering the material and the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli granted a decree for a sum of Rs.650/- as damages per acre and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs and the cross objections were filed questioning the liability. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the crops of the plaintiffs were damaged due to the use of the effluents from the defendant Company? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Court is not legal? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the value as claimed by them? POINTS: In this case, Ex.A-3 is the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapalli, who is said to have taken the samples and analysed the same and it was also opined that the crop was damaged due to the effluents of the ammonia water, which is poisonous from the plant of the defendant. Ex.A-4 is the estimate given for the probable loss of the crop and after considering all the material in column No.18 under Ex.A-4, the total net profit that was expected per acre after excluding the expenses was fixed at Rs.2,650/-. In fact, the A.P. Pollution Control Board also noticed that the patta fields were completely spoiled and it might be due to the overflow of the evaporation of the effluents near the compound wall of the defendant. The possibility of the loss due to the discharge of effluents from the defendant Corporation is also emphasized in Ex.B-3. Therefore, it is futile for the defendant to contend that there was no damage and consequently the defendant is not liable for the same. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli found the basis of arriving at the figures in Exs.A-3 and A-4 were not established and the persons, who gave those certificates, were also not examined. Therefore, the learned Judge was not inclined to accept the said report. Evidently, the estimate made under Ex.A-4 is only a hypothetical estimate and even under Ex.A-3 it was noticed that the crop at the earlier stages was good and the part of the other crop was damaged. The extent of the damage is not proved by any positive evidence. There is also no material evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to prove the particulars of the damages for the income of the earlier years and the investment made by them, which could have been of some help to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, in the absence of above such material, the guess was made by the learned Judge cannot be faulted. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit and the Cross Objections are dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 25.08.2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.2499 of 1992 and Cross Objections No.10337 of 1993 Date: 25-08-2011 MR