THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 981 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No. 43 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was one filed for damages for the injuries caused to the plaintiff while he was playing Caroms in the defendant’s club. 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, the roof of the building was suddenly fallen and he sustained several injuries and also spent amount for medical expenses and also was on leave for a long time and incurred expenditure. A sum of Rs.13,500/- was paid to him in different instalments, but however the suit was filed for a sum of Rs.1,36,500/- towards damages. 4. The defendant filed written statement denying the responsibility for the payment of damages and the negligence attributed to it and further stated that the claim for damages is excessive and not tenable. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court, for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries due to his own negligence? 2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for any damages and if so what amount? 3) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-17. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.9. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, has granted a sum of Rs.36,500/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 8. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the compensation? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount so granted by the lower Court? 9. POINTS: It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a member of the defendant’s club and while he was playing, the roof of the building has fallen and the plaintiff has received some injuries. Even if the plaintiff is a member still the maintenance of the building is to be looked after by the management and evidently there being a negligence and lack of proper maintenance, the roof has fallen and the plaintiff has received the injuries. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be denied the right to claim damages. 10. In order to claim damages, the plaintiff has to prove the nature of the injuries received by him and the loss sustained and medical expenses incurred by him. So far as his loss of service or any disabilities is concerned, there is no proof and the lower Court has not accepted the above facts. The plaintiff has also not chosen to examine the doctor, who treated the plaintiff, and also the injury certificate is not produced and proved by the plaintiff. Even as per the opinion of the lower Court, the plaintiff has failed to produce medical bills and other bills relating to the treatment. But however for each operation there will be some requirements and the expenditure will be not less than Rs.25,000/- and granted the same. This approach of the lower Court is not correct. It is for the plaintiff to prove as to what is the nature of the injuries that were received and what was the operation that was done and how long the plaintiff was in hospital. The Court may grant some medical expenses for the plaintiff but at the same time it shall be proportionate to the nature of the injuries. In the absence of any proof of the particular nature of the injuries or medical record about the conducting of operation, the approach of the lower Court is also not correct. The lower Court has also granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering. The grant of the compensation towards pain and suffering also depends upon the nature of the injuries received. Therefore, the decree of the lower Court granting compensation a sum of Rs.50,000/- cannot be sustained. However, it is represented by the counsel for the appellant that in pursuance of the directions of this Court in the said application, half of the decretal amount was said to have been deposited and was also withdrawn by the plaintiff. 11. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the total compensation of Rs.30,000/- is granted and from out of it, an amount of Rs.13,500/- paid prior to the suit, shall be given deduction and there shall be an interest at 6% per annum only on the balance of Rs.16,500/- till the date of payment. Accordingly, the points are answered and the appeal is allowed in part. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- which was granted by the lower Court and the payment of Rs.13,500/- made prior to the filing of the suit shall be deducted and the plaintiff shall be entitled for the balance with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Each party shall bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 08.06.2011. INL