In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2670 of 2005 ..... Date of decision:13.5.2008 Swaran Singh .....Appellant v. Devinder Singh and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabbra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot whereby the appeal of defendant No.1-appellant Swaran Singh has been dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent No.1-Devinder Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,99,000/- as damages and compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the occurrence that took place on 19.8.1995. The plaintiff along with his father Jagir Singh had gone to the fields on a bullock cart for cutting fodder. The father of the plaintiff was cutting the fodder and the plaintiff had gone to attend the call of nature in the nearby fields. In the meantime, defendants Swaran Singh and Avtar Singh armed with swords came to the fields of the plaintiff. Swaran Singh raised a `Lalkara' that the plaintiff be taught a lesson for teasing the daughter of his sister-in-law. Upon this defendant Swaran Singh gave two sword blows on the person of plaintiff which hit on his nose and right side of his neck. Avtar Singh gave three blows with his sword which hit on the right elbow, right finger and R.S.A. No.2670 of 2005 [2] left leg of the plaintiff. The plaintiff fell on the ground. The defendants inflicted various injuries while he was on the ground. The father of the plaintiff raised an alarm as a result of which both the defendants ran away with their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by the father of the plaintiff who took him to Civil Hospital, Zira in a tractor trolley. The doctors at Zira Hospital found the plaintiff to be in serious condition and referred him to Medical College, Faridkot, where he was admitted on 19.8.1995 On the basis of the allegations as made case FIR No.16 dated 20.8.1995 was registered against the defendants at Police Station Zira for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC. The plaintiff was discharged from Shri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot on 21.10.1995. It is stated that a sum of Rs.2 Lacs were spent on the treatment of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1-Swaran Singh has filed the present appeal. Mr. S.C. Chhabbra, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has inter alia contended that the learned Courts below have taken into account the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur against which an appeal is pending in this Court. Therefore, the said judgment and order cannot be relied upon. It is also contended that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the injured whereas the trial Court has granted compensation merely by stating that in the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice the plaintiff is entitled to compensation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Lachhman Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur an others, AIR 1979 P&H 50 (F.B.). It is also R.S.A. No.2670 of 2005 [3] contended that no specific issue has been framed with regard to the occurrence and an omnibus issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation has been framed and this would not entitle him to any compensation without framing an issue as to the occurrence. In response, Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has submitted that the plaintiff suffered as many as 20 injuries in the occurrence. Besides, it is submitted that the grounds for determining the actual loss has been duly considered by the learned District Judge in his impugned order. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is just and expedient and calls for no interference by this Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the Courts below. It may be noticed that the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the defendants was tendered in evidence as Ex.P.9. However, that by itself is not such circumstance to hold that the learned Courts below have in view of the order of conviction awarded the compensation. It may be noticed that the evidence that has been led on record has been duly considered by both the Courts below. The plaintiff in order to support his case examined Dr. Rachhpal Singh (PW-1), Jagir Singh (PW-3), Sukhdev Singh (PW-4), Dr. Rajinder Kumar (PW-5), Dr. Sohan Singh (PW-6) besides Devinder Singh- plaintiff himself has appeared as PW-2. His statement was tendered in evidence. The revenue record in the shape of Jamabandi was also tendered in evidence. Learned lower appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial R.S.A. No.2670 of 2005 [4] Court. As regards the compensation the matter was considered in para 16 of its judgment. The plaintiff in fact in his plaint as well as in his evidence deposed in the Court stated that he has spent Rs.2 Lacs for the treatment for the injuries suffered by him at the hands of the defendants. He also stated that owing to the injuries suffered by him he has become handicapped and is unable to work. After receipt of injuries from the defendants he is unable to even perform his daily pursuits. The learned District Judge noticed that the plaintiff remained under treatment at Shri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for more than two months. The statement of Dr. Sohan Singh (PW-6) was referred to which was to the effect that the plaintiff remained under treatment in the Orthopedic Ward of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot from 19.8.1995 till 21.10.1995. The learned trial Court held that the injured himself had spent huge amount on his treatment. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2 Lacs was awarded. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned lower appellate Court has not assessed the pecuniary loss caused to the injured or that the rule laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Lachhman Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur and others (supra) has not been adhered to. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below have taken into consideration the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 (Ex.P.9) against which appeal is pending in this Court is also inconsequential. It is well known that a civil liability can be fastened on the defendants on the basis of preponderance of evidence whereas guilt of an accused in a criminal trial is to be proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Even otherwise independent of the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 (Ex.P.9) both the Courts below have considered the other evidence R.S.A. No.2670 of 2005 [5] on record and the judgment (Ex.P.9) of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is only corroborative in nature. Therefore, the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that undue weightage has been given to the judgment dated 3.5.2000 (Ex.P.9) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is devoid of any merit. The contention that in the absence of any issue regarding the alleged occurrence a serious prejudice has been caused to the defendants is also without basis. It may be noticed that both the parties have led evidence on the nature of injuries and also on the quantum of compensation. In Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip and others, AIR 1964 SC 164, it was held that where both the parties understanding what the issue in the case was, absence of issue would not lead to mis-trial sufficient to vitiate the decision. Therefore, both the parties being aware of the issues between the parties and the claim of the plaintiff, the mere fact that specific issue has not been framed with regard to the alleged occurrence is of no significance and has not resulted in any prejudice to the defendant- appellant. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be considered as an opinion on the merit of the case which is pending in appeal before this Court against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 3.5.2000. May 13, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes