IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 5 of 2009() ------------------- AS.61/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR O.S.NO.241/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------- POULOSE, AGED 61, S/O.MATHAPPAN, NAMMUNARIL HOUSE, POYYAKKUNNAM KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------ JIMMY, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 39, THUKALIL HOUSE, NJARALLOOR KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.S.A.NO.5 OF 2009 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No241/2000 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.61/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. The suit was filed for damages. The trial court decreed the suit and was confirmed in appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 2. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant on 17/8/1999 trespassed into the property of the plaintiff, inflicted cut injury with a chopper on the left heal of the plaintiff and as a result of the act the tendon of the left leg was severed. The plaintiff sustained grevious hurt. Police registered Crime No.169/99 against the defendant. It is further averred that the plaintiff incurred an amount of Rs.9,019.99 towards medical expenses. A steel rod is fixed on the tendon. For removing the -2- R.S.A.No.5/2009 same another surgery was necessitated. The plaintiff also claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. 3. The defendant denied the alleged incident and contended inter alia that the injury caused to the plaintiff is not due to any of his act, that he is innocent in the matter and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. 4. In support of the claim PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked and on the side of the defendant DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.B1 was marked. The trial court examined the question in detail on the basis of the evidence on record. The trial court believed the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and relied on Exts.A5 and A7. Ext.A5 is a treatment certificate and Ext.A7 is the wound-cum-discharge certificate. The trial court also examined in detail the question as to whether the defendant had inflicted injury to the plaintiff. Ext.B1 is the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.801/99 of the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry. Ext.A8 is the certified -3- R.S.A.No.5/2009 copy of the judgment in C.C.No.840/99 of the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry. By Ext.A8 the defendant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. As per Ext.B1 judgment the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The trial court held that Ext.A8 judgment prima facie proved that the defendant has caused grievous injury on the back of left heel of the plaintiff with a chopper. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate were set aside by the Appellate Court. The trial court relied on the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also placed reliance on several other documents including Ext.A8 judgment to conclude that the plaintiff sustained grievous injury on the back of his left heel with a chopper. The further question regarding the actual damages caused to the plaintiff by the act of the defendant was also examined in detail. Ext.A6 series of -4- R.S.A.No.5/2009 medical bills shows that the plaintiff has incurred Rs.8,926.18 as medical expenses for treatment at the Specialists Hospital, Ernakulam. In addition to the actual expenses incurred the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings. 5. Ext.A5 certificate shows that the plaintiff has sustained a compound injury on his left calcaneus. The fixation of two cancellous screws on the calcaneus of the plaintiff and the plaster of paris cast on the left leg will go to show that he was under treatment. Considering the injury caused the expenses incurred as alleged is nominal and the award of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering is also very reasonable. The total amount of Rs.13,926.18 was awarded together with interest at 6% per annum towards damages. 6. The Appellate Court also considered the contentions of the appellant and held that the learned Munsiff has considered the evidence in the right perspective and decreed the suit. The Appellate Court found that no grounds are made out to interfere -5- R.S.A.No.5/2009 with the findings of the trial court. 7. I have also examined the contentions raised by the appellants herein. The grant of decree in favour of the plaintiff, since he has sustained grievous injuries, is a fact established. Only basic expense alone, which is necessary for the treatment, was awarded plus a nominal amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The finding was entered, after considering all the materials on record. I find that no different view is possible in the given circumstances. The appellant has failed to urge any grounds for invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.