RSA No. 4251 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4251 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 22, 2011 Surjit Kaur and others ……Appellants Versus Karamjit Kaur and others …….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate, With Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. On account of the murder of Nachhattar Singh, his legal heirs i.e. plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred as ‘the plaintiffs’) had claimed damages to the tune of ` 5 Lacs by way of suit, which was partly decreed by the trial Court on 12.03.2010 for the sum of ` 3,84,000/- along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred as ‘the defendants’) was dismissed on 28.03.2011. Still dissatisfied, they have come up in appeal. Factual matrix, essential for disposal of the present appeal, are that on 31.03.1999 at about 8.00 P.M., Surmukh Singh and Jarnail Singh sons of Bhajan Singh were returning to their houses, situated at village Pohlomajra. When they reached on the turning of their street and were near the house of Ujaggar Singh-defendant, they saw latter armed with a lathi, 1 RSA No. 4251 of 2011 (O&M) Kesar Singh armed with a gandasi, Rattan Singh armed with a kirpan, Bhadar Singh armed with a Tangli and Kulwinder Singh armed with Barchha (all defendants) standing there. They attacked Sarmukh Singh and Jarnail Singh, while exhorting to teach them a lesson for having purchased the land of manure pit of Gurdev Singh. Kesar Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of Jarnail Singh, whereas Rattan Singh inflicted a kirpan blow to Surmukh Singh. Bhajan Singh inflicted blow from the reverse side of ‘Tangli’ on the left shoulder of Surmukh Singh. Ujaggar Singh inflicted two lathi blows on Jarnail Singh. Then, both Jarnail Singh and Surmukh Singh fell down, but the defendants continuously gave them injuries, even when they were lying on the ground. They raised hue and cry, which attracted Nachhattar Singh son of Raunak Singh at the spot. Ujaggar Singh, then exhorted to catch hold of Nachhattar Singh for supporting Surmukh Singh and Jarnail Singh. On this, Kesar Singh and Rattan Singh gave gandasi and kirpan blows on the head of Nachhattar Singh. Kulwinder Singh inflicted a ‘barchha’ blow on his neck. Thereafter, Nachhattar Singh fell down on the ground, but the defendants continued causing injuries to him. In the mean time, family members of Surmukh Singh reached the spot. On seeing them, the defendants fled away. Nachhattar Singh was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries on 01.04.1999. While claiming damages, it was pleaded that Nachhattar Singh was hale and hearty, aged about 35 years and the plaintiffs were dependent upon him. He was working as a truck driver and was also doing agriculture. His monthly income was ` 3000/- per month. On the death of Nachhattar Singh, not only the plaintiffs have been deprived of the dependency, but they have also been deprived of the love and affection, which he was imparting towards them. 2 RSA No. 4251 of 2011 (O&M) Upon notice, defendants put in appearance and filed joint written statement. Besides taking preliminary objections, the defendants denied the relationship of deceased with the plaintiffs and also denied about the act done by them. They also denied about his employment and salary. Replication was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of ` 5,00,000/- on account of death of Nachhattar Singh son of Raunak Singh, caused by the defendants? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” The parties were called upon to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. Plaintiffs examined Karamjit Kaur-defendant No.1 (PW-1), Jarnail Singh, eye witness (PW-2), Randhir Singh (PW-3), Kultar Singh (PW-4), Dr. Krishan Vij, who proved postmortem report of Nachhattar Singh (PW-5) and closed their evidence after tendering certified copy of judgment dated 09.03.2004, Ex.PX and jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Ex.PY. To the contrary, defendant Kesar Singh appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and examined Amrik Singh as DW-2. They also tendered into evidence certified copy of the order dated 08.04.2004, Ex.DX. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, partly decreed the suit in the aforesaid terms. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. 3 RSA No. 4251 of 2011 (O&M) Besides tendering the criminal judgment dated 09.03.2004, Ex.PX, holding the defendants guilty and convicting and sentencing them, the plaintiffs have also examined Jarnail Singh (PW-2) and Randhir Singh (PW-3). They have narrated the occurrence in all minute details and also stated about the cruel manner, in which Nachhattar Singh was attacked and inflicted injuries, merely on the ground that he had intervened to save Jarnail Singh and Surmukh Singh. These two witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no such facts came to light, which may attack their credibility and reliability. They had no enmity against the defendants. They would be the last persons to give up the real culprits and substitute the defendants in their place. Their evidence stands corroborated by Dr. Krishan Vij (PW-5), who has proved the medico legal report of Nachhattar Singh. Having examined the oral version and while comparing it with the testimony of Dr. Krishan Vij (PW-5), it transpires that the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular version. As regards the Criminal Court Judgment, it may be observed that the same has a probative value and it could strengthen the case of the plaintiffs. No precedent has been relied upon in order to support the contention that the judgment passed by the Criminal Court could not be taken into consideration or it has no relevancy. Thus, the ocular version, coupled with the medical evidence and finding support from the criminal judgment, this Court does not find any ground to differ with the findings returned by both the Courts below on the point that deceased-Nachhattar Singh died as a result of wrongful act committed by the defendants and all of them are vicariously responsible for the act. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the trial Court while taking annual income of the deceased to be ` 24,000/-, applied the multiplier 4 RSA No. 4251 of 2011 (O&M) of 16, which is quite reasonable, as Nachhattar Singh left behind him a widow, two minor sons and three minor daughters. Besides this, he had old parents to maintain. As such, the compensation awarded against the defendants is not, in any manner, on the higher side. No substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (A.N.Jindal) December 22, 2011 Judge ajp 5