R.S.A. No. 3418 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 2.12.2008 (1) Regular Second Appeal No.3418 of 2008 (O&M) Chhinder Kaur and others .. Appellants v. Balbir Singh and others .. Respondents (2) Regular Second Appeal No.3419 of 2008 (O&M) Chhinder Kaur and others .. Appellants v. Balbir Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondent No.1. .. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing Nos. 3418 and 3419 of 2008, which arise out of a common judgment by the learned court below, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him, was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that both the parties are residents of the same village. Civil and criminal litigation was pending between them on account of which relations were strained. In a fight on 12.1.1996, gun shot injury was inflicted on respondent-plaintiff for which FIR No. 9 under Sections 307/392/34 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. The respondent-plaintiff suffered two lacerated punctured wounds on his right leg. He remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Sirsa from 12.1.1996 to 15.1.1996 and because of inadequate facilities available there, he was referred to Delhi or Ludhiana for further treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Delhi and remained admitted in Jaipur R.S.A. No. 3418 of 2008 [2] Golden Hospital, Delhi from 16.1.1996 to 21.1.1996. The doctors advised that left leg of the respondent-plaintiff will have to be amputated in order to save his live. From there, respondent-plaintiff was taken to C.M.C., Ludhiana, who also advised amputation of the leg and under these circumstances, it had to be amputated. For the purpose, he remained admitted in C.M.C., Ludhiana also for a considerable time. To enable him to walk, the respondent-plaintiff got support of the artificial leg in April, 1996, which also had to be replaced twice. The disability was assessed at 70%. It was further claimed that the respondent-plaintiff incurred a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- on medicines, operation, conveyance etc. for his medical treatment. Rs. 20,000/- was claimed for pain and suffering and future loss of earning. It was further claimed that he used to earn Rs. 150/- per day prior to the injuries. The learned trial court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 3,16,000/-. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, both the parties preferred appeals. The appeal filed by the appellants-defendants was dismissed, whereas in appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the amount was further enhanced to Rs. 5,24,500/-. It is the judgment and decree of the learned court below passed in the above referred two appeals, which is sought to be impugned by the appellants-defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that against the conviction by the criminal court, the appeal before this Court is already pending and in case his conviction is set aside, the same will certainly have bearing on the claim made by the respondent-plaintiff. He further submitted that assessment of the compensation by the learned court below is not fair. As the disability was assessed at 70%, the compensation could not be payable more than that. The dependency has not been considered. Still further, the submission is that the total claim made by the respondent-plaintiff was Rs. 4,00,000/-, whereas the learned court below enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,24,500/- and even the court fee had not been filed with the appeal. Learned counsel for the caveator submitted that he had led independent evidence in the present case regarding involvement of Balwinder Singh for the injuries suffered by the respondent-plaintiff. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below. Even if the appeal against the conviction of Balwinder Singh is pending in this court, the same will not have any bearing in the present case as the findings of the criminal court will not be binding on the civil court. In the criminal proceedings, the case had to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in the civil proceedings, it is R.S.A. No. 3418 of 2008 [3] merely preponderance of probabilities on the evidence on record. As far as grant of more compensation than what was claimed is concerned, it was submitted that the court had granted just and fair compensation. The claim made by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit filed was much more. However, as the respondent-plaintiff could not afford substantial court fee, the same was restricted to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Relying upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in Mathura Dutt and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2006 ACJ 1129, the submission is that the learned court below, while granting compensation more than for which the court fee was paid, had already directed payment of additional court fee which shall be complied with. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the appeals. As far as the involvement of Balwinder Singh (deceased) in the crime is concerned, it has been reasonably proved in the proceedings before the courts below, where concurrent finding of fact has been recorded on the issue. Merely because an appeal against his conviction in the criminal trial is pending will not be sufficient to hold that till such time, the respondent-plaintiff shall not be entitled to damages for the injuries suffered as the findings recorded by the criminal court would not be binding in the civil proceedings where the preponderance of evidence required is of a lesser degree. In the present case, sufficient evidence is on record to prove the guilt. As far as calculation of claim is concerned, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that it had not correctly calculated the amount of compensation, as monthly income of the respondent-plaintiff was multiplied with 70. The learned appellate court corrected that mistake by taking the annual income of the respondent-plaintiff and multiplying the same with 15 and granted 70% thereon being compensation. Even the amount awarded on other counts, namely, for treatment etc. is also not on higher side keeping in view the fact that the respondent-plaintiff had to be shifted to three hospitals and his leg had to be amputated. Even the argument regarding grant of more amount than what was claimed in the appeal is also misconceived as the court had to determine just and fair compensation. It was for the purpose of payment of court fee that he had restricted the claim. The learned court below has already directed for payment of the balance court fee and on that account also, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. R.S.A. No. 3418 of 2008 [4] No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.12.2008 mk