RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M). Decided on: January 17, 2011. Dalel Singh and others. .. Appellants VERSUS Smt.Chhano Devi and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Defendants-appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court dated 23.05.2005, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents for recovery of damages to the extent of ` 1 lac with . . . 1 RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) costs setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents. Brief facts of the case, relevant for the adjudication of this appeal, are that the plaintiffs-respondents No.2 to 4 being minors at the time of filing of the suit represented through their natural guardian, plaintiff-respondent No.1, their mother, claimed damages of ` 1 lac on account of death of Bhim Singh, husband of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and father of plaintiffs-respondents No.2 to 4, alleging that Bhim Singh was killed by the defendants-appellants and injuries were inflicted in the presence of Diwan Singh, Chaman and Zile Singh whereas the occurrence was witnessed by Phool Singh, Sawiya Ram and Gaje Singh. An FIR had been registered under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 427, 323 & 324 IPC on 23.07.1983 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, after trial had convicted all the defendants-appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court vide judgment dated 29.05.1986, acquitted all the accused except for Dalel Singh, defendant-appellant No.1, under Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years besides imposing fine upon him. It was claimed that the deceased Bhim Singh was the only bread earner of the family. He left behind the plaintiffs-respondents in destitute. The deceased was aged 46 years at the time of his murder and used to earn ` 18,000/- per annum by cultivating agricultural land owned by him. He also used to . . . 2 RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) cultivate 7 killas of land on batai. The defendants-appellants contested the suit raising preliminary objections that the suit had been filed after expiry of 3 years as such, it was time barred as all the defendants- appellants except for defendant-appellant No.1, Dalel singh was acquitted by the High Court, on the ground that Dalel Singh had exceeded the right of self-defence as provided under Section 100 IPC. He was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause and locus standi to bring the suit? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages if so, how much from whom? OPD 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Relief. Issue No.1 was decided by the trial Court in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs on appreciation of evidence holding that Bhim Singh deceased and his companions were aggressor and had gone to the land in dispute to take forcible possession and the defendant-appellant No.1 was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC, and not under Section 302 IPC as the death had not been caused by the defendants-appellants intentionally. Under issue No.2, plaintiffs were not held entitled to recover any damages. Issue No.3, was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and . . . 3 RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) against the defendants. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding of trial Court on issue Nos.1 to 3 holding that the responsibility of death of Bhim Singh lies upon defendant Dalel Singh as Dalel Singh had exceeded the right of private defence and he was only liable to compensate the plaintiffs-respondents. The plaintiffs-respondents were held entitled to compensation of ` 1 lac on account of death of Bhim Singh. The lower appellate Court held that the suit for damages having been filed within a period of 3 years after the order of conviction having attained finality on 29.05.1986, was not barred by time. The defendants-appellants aggrieved by the judgment of reversal has challenged the judgment and decree contending that the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court has been set aside without proper legal reasoning. It was contended that the judgment of the criminal Court i.e., judgment EX.P10 passed by the Higih Court on 29.05.1986, could not have been considered by the Civil Court while deciding the suit as judgment of criminal Court is not binding on the civil Court and that the suit had to be decided on the basis of the evidence which had been produced on the record. It was also contended that the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents was barred by limitation as the occurrence had taken place on 23.07.1983, whereas the suit had been filed on 22.07.1986 and the limitation in the present case is governed by Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said Article provides two years for claiming . . . 4 RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) compensation under Fatal Accidents Act. The quantum of compensation determined by the lower appellate Court was also challenged. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and carefully gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. The lower appellate Court has relied upon the judgment of the High Court convicting appellant No.1, under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that he exceeded the right of self-defence besides taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses namely, Head Constable Jai Pal PW.1, Phool Singh PW.2, Smt.Channo Devi PW.3 and Dr.S.C.Jindal,PW.4, and various documents produced on record i.e., FIR EX.P1, copies of jamabandi for the years 1979-80 to 1985 as EX.P2 to EX.P4, Post-mortem- report EX.PW4/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 1979-80 EX.P6, copy of Girdawari from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1985 EX.P7, copy of judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra EX.P8 dated 09.05.1986, copy of interim order dated 09.05.1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra EX.P9, and copy of the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.272-DB of 1985 EX.P10. While awarding compensation to the plaintiffs-respondents, it has been considered that the cause of death of Bhim Singh was injury attributed to Dalel Singh. The circumstances on the record indicate that Bhim Singh lost his life on account of act of appellant No.1 Dalel Singh. Even if it is considered that he had caused the death in self-defence, the evidence led on . . . 5 RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) the record indicates that he had exceeded the right of self-defence which had resulted in the death of husband of respondent No.1. The eye-witness Phool Singh has been examined before the trial Court. His statement along with documentary evidence produced on the record in the shape of post-mortem-report is sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that death of Bhim Singh was caused due to act of defendants-appellants. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is not solely based upon the judgment of criminal Court but there is independent evidence to indicate in the shape of statements of PW.1 Head Constable Jai Pal and PW.2 Phool Singh that the plaintiffs-respondents have suffered loss on account of act of all the appellants and that they are entitled to be compensated for the loss. The compensation is required to be assessed on the basis of the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents of the deceased. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the pecuniary loss has not been established. I have carefully gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below which indicate that the deceased was an agriculturist and the plaintiffs-respondents were dependent upon him. The deceased was aged about 46 years and was cultivating his own land besides cultivating another 7 killas of land on batai. Copies of jamabandi and khasra girdawari EX.P7, indicate that Bhim Singh had agricultural income. The income of Bhim Singh was certainly more than an unskilled labourer. His income has not been claimed more than ` 1500/- per month. Even if it is presumed that he was . . . 6 RSA No.3150 of 2006 (O&M) spending 1/3rd of his income on himself, the dependency of the plaintiffs-respondents would come to ` 1,000/- per month. The annual dependency would be ` 12,000/-. Even if it is presumed that he was to live for another 10 years, the multiplier of 10 if applied, it would bring the amount of pecuniary loss to around ` 1,20,000/-. Only ` One lac has been claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents as compensation. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate Court does not warrant any interference and as such, the appeal is dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 17, 2011. rka . . . 7