IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 RSA.No. 1108 of 2009() ---------------------- AS.373/2002 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OS.20/1998 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------- 1. VARGHESE @ SOMAN ,S/O.NARAYANAN, EERATTINAPURAM, KARAKKATUVILA,KIZHAKKARUKU PUTHEN VEEDU,MAMPAZHAKKARA DESOM, PEURMKADAVILA VILLAGE. 2. VASUDHARAN KRISHNANKUTTY,KORALAYIL VADAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,PASUVANNARA DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE. 3. VENUDEVAN KRISHNANKUTTY, S.K.BHAVAN, PASUVANNARA DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE. 4. AMBILI @ MONIYAN, S/O.POULOSE, KORALAYIL VADAKKEKKARA VAYALARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU DO..DO.. 5. SASIDHARAN @ SASI ,S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI PERAYATHUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU OF DO..DO. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: --------------- 1. DOMININ RAJ @ JATE S/O.RAJEEVAN, EERATTINPURATHU, NELLIKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, PASUVANNARA DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE. 2. RAJEEVAN, S/O. ERAMIYA NADAR OF DO..DO... THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.1108 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.373 of 2002 dismissing the appeal and allowing cross objection in part to the extent that a further sum of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded as compensation to respondent No.2. 2. Respondent No.1 is an Assistant Professor in a Homeo Medical College. Respondent No.2 is a retired Headmaster. Their case is that on 18.2.1997 at about 7.30 p.m. while they were riding on a motor bike and reached the place of occurrence appellants formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt/grievous hurt to them. They were taken to the Taluk Government Hospital, Neyyattinkara and then to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram where they underwent hospitalization and treatment. Police recorded the statement of respondent No.2 (Ext.A2) and registered a case against the appellants for their alleged wrongful acts. Investigation revealed that appellants allegedly committed the crime. Accordingly, a final report was submitted in the court concerned. Ext.A1 is the copy of final report. The court took cognizance against the appellants and they RSA No.1108/2009 2 were tried. Claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- respondents sued the appellants. Appellants contended that no such incident occurred, there was a dispute between them and respondents in connection with employment, respondent No.2 had filed several complaints against them and while so, on the alleged day and time of the incident respondents who were riding on the motor bike, fell down and sustained injuries which has been converted into a case of this nature on the false information given by respondent No.1. They also denied the claim for compensation. Learned Sub Judge found that appellants assaulted respondents as alleged and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.16,600/- to respondent No.2. Appellants challenged the judgment and decree in appeal. Respondents preferred a cross objection. First appellate court vide the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross objection in part modifying compensation awarded to respondent No.2 as Rs.18,600/-. That judgment and decree are under challenge in this Second Appeal. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no acceptable evidence to show that respondents suffered injuries as alleged by them and at any rate, compensation and interest awarded are excessive. 3. So far as the alleged incident is concerned, there is evidence of respondents as PWs 1 and 2. They have also examined PW5 who claimed to a witness to the incident. Learned counsel points out PW5 is not a witness cited by the police in Ext.A1, final report. That however is no reason to discard the RSA No.1108/2009 3 evidence of PW5 if it is otherwise acceptable. It is also in evidence that respondents suffered injuries on the alleged day and time and underwent treatment at Taluk Government Hospital, Neyyattinkara and then at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Injuries suffered by the respondents are proved by Exts.A8 and A9, copy of wound certificates issued by PW4 who treated them. It is seen from Ext.A8 that respondent No.1 suffered three lacerated wounds, contusion and abrasion while as per Ext.A9, respondent No.2 suffered abrasions and had complaint of pain. Evidence of PW6 and Exts.X1 and X2 show that respondents were admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 19.2.1997 and underwent treatment there till 24.2.1997. It is revealed from Ext.X2, case sheet concerning treatment of respondent No.2 that he had suffered fracture of 9th and 10th ribs. 4. Exts.B1 and B2 series are produced by the appellants to show that respondents had not undergone treatment at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. In Exts.B1 and B2 series their discharge from Taluk Government Hospital, Neyyattinkara is shown to be on 20.2.1997 while as per Exts.X1 and X2 and the evidence of PW6 they were admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 19.2.1997. But the courts below have observed from Ext.A2, copy of first information statement given by respondent No.2 that the said statement would show that when that statement was given on 19.2.1997, respondents were undergoing inpatient treatment at Medical College RSA No.1108/2009 4 Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 5. DW1 has given evidence on behalf of the appellants. But that evidence is not sufficient to displace the evidence given by the respondents. Evidence of PWs 1,2 and 5 regarding the incident gets corroboration from Exts.A8, A9, X1 and X2. Courts below have accepted the evidence and found that on account of the wrongful act of the appellants, respondents suffered injuries. No substantial question of law is involved in respect of that finding since it rest on a proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by both sides. 6. So far as the amount of compensation awarded is concerned, it is seen that courts below have taken into account various aspects such as income of the respondents, pain and suffering undergone by them, the amounts spent for treatment, transportation charges, loss of earnings and all other relevant circumstances. First appellate court while allowing the cross objection, enhanced compensation awarded to respondent No.2 by Rs.2,000/-. On going through the judgment under challenge I do not find reason to think that compensation awarded is exorbitant so as to call for interference in the Second Appeal. Interference with respect to the amount awarded is called for only when the amount awarded is either alarmingly meagre or exorbitant. The interest awarded also cannot said to be illegal or excessive. On hearing learned counsel and going through the judgment under challenge, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for a decision in RSA No.1108/2009 5 the Second Appeal requiring its admission and notice to the respondents. The Second Appeal is dismissed as in limine. I.A.No.2516 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks