IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 AS.No. 600 of 1999(D) --------------------- AS.487/1996 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ----------------- AJI SURENDRAN, S/O.R.SURENDRAN, FIAL YEAR M.B.B.S. STUDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------- K.K. RAVENDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, EDAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMAKUMAR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.4897/99 IN A.S.NO.600/1999 ---------- DISMISSED 15/10/2009 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- A.S.NO.600 OF 1999 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.487/96 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The suit was filed claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The trial court partly decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.61,000/-. Hence this appeal. 2. The plaintiff/respondent is a Police Constable. There was an agitation by the students of the Calicut Medical College during October, 1991 against the Government's proposal to grant sanction to start private medical colleges in this State. The Calicut Medical College students arranged a dharna as part of their agitation on 26/11/1991. The plaintiff alleged that at about 11 a.m. on 26/11/1991 about 250 student gathered the main gate of the civil station, that some students including the defendant managed to get inside the compound of the -2- A.S.No.600/99 Collectorate and that the plaintiff along with other policemen were stationed at the Collectorate gate to prevent forcible entry of the medical college students, who were on the war-path. The plaintiff further alleged that some of the students including the defendant by force entered into the civil station compound and committed breach of law and order situation, that they called other students to cause injury to the policemen, that the defendant took a big stone and threw it at the plaintiff, that the stone hit below the knee of the plaintiff and caused multiple fracture on his left leg, that the plaintiff fell down due to the stone throw and he was taken to the Medical College Hospital by other policemen on duty. It is also alleged that he was not attended properly by the doctors at the medical College Hospital because they are also supporting the agitation led by the Medical College Students, therefore, the plaintiff was discharged from the Medical College Hospital and was admitted in the P.V.S. Hospital, Kozhikode, where he was treated as inpatient for three months. -3- A.S.No.600/99 3. It is the plaintiff's case that he underwent two major operations in P.V.S. Hospital, Kozhikode and subsequently he was referred to the Asoka Hospital, Kozhikode. He remain in Ashoka Hospital for a period of four months as an inpatient. As part of treatment the bone had to be cut and removed and he was undergoing Ayurvedic treatment in Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Sala simultaneously with the allopathic treatment. The plaintiff pleaded that he suffered severe mental agony, pain and expenses due to the act of the defendant. The plaintiff was aged only 29 at the time of the incident. According to him, he had spent an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs for the treatment and other connected expenses. The plaintiff contended that he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and interest; but limited the claim at Rs.2 lakhs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount. 4. The defendant inter alia contended that there was a picketing at the Collectorate, Kozhikode on 26/11/1991 by the Medical College students, that the agitation was peaceful and -4- A.S.No.600/99 there was absolutely no provocation from the side of the Medical College students. He denied the allegation that the defendant himself threw a big stone at the plaintiff which hit on his left leg and caused multiple fracture. He also contended that the police lathi-charged the peaceful gathering of the students at the Collectorate, that even if the plaintiff had sustained any injury on the said date, it could only have been the result of a fall while he was chasing the students and that the multiple fracture described in the plaint could easily have been caused as a result of a fall. It is admitted by the defendant that he is the Unit Secretary of the Medical College S.F.I. Unit and he has actively taken part in the activities of the action committee. The defendant also denied the entitlement of the claim stated in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the plaintiff, DW1 to 5 were examined and Exts.B1 to B6 series were marked on the side of the defendant -5- A.S.No.600/99 and Ext.X1 to X4 were also marked. 6. The trial court examined the question as to whether the defendant is responsible for the injury allegedly sustained by the plaintiff and whether he is liable to pay any compensation. The plaintiff, who was examined as PW1, testified before the court below that the defendant was the student leader, who had been agitating dharna against the sanctioning of the private Medical Colleges by the Government and that he was on duty on 26/11/1991 where the picketing was conducted by the agitating students in the Collectorate, Kozhikode. He further testified that some students managed to get inside the Collectorate compound unlawfully and they started shouting slogans from the enquiry counter of the Collectorate. The students went inside the Collectorate attempted to pull open the gate and the students, who were picketing outside the gate also attempted to push the gate. The policemen on duty tried to prevent the students from opening the gate. Naturally there was a confrontation between the -6- A.S.No.600/99 policemen and the students and the students started pelting stones at the policemen. PW1 further testified that the defendant took a big stone and threw it at the plaintiff, that the stone hit PW1 on his left leg below the knee as a result of which he sustained multiple fracture and he fell down on the ground. PW2 is another police constable, who accompanied the plaintiff to the Medical College Hospital. PW1 further deposed that he did not get proper attention or treatment in the Medical College Hospital. Doctors keep distance from attending the patient presumably for the reason that they were also supporting the agitation led by the students. 7. Plaintiff produced Ext.A1 copy of the wound certificate, Ext.A2 copy of F.I.R, Ext.A3 discharge summary, Ext.A4 certificate issued by Dr. Ramakrishnan of Asoka Hospital, Ext.A6 prescriptions of Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal, A6(a) and A6(b), Ext. A8 case sheet, Ext.A9 treatment card, Ext.A10 certificate from P.V.S. Hospital, Exts.A12 and A13 X-rays etc. in -7- A.S.No.600/99 support of his claim for compensation. Plaintiff also examined PW-2, who testified that he has attended duty at the Collectorate on the date of incident and he saw the defendant pelting stone on PW-1. He is the person who had taken PW1 to the Medical College Hospital for treatment. PW-3, who is another eye witness, testified that he saw the defendant and some other students causing damages to the furniture of the District Medical Office at the Collectorate building. He also testified that he saw the students pulled down certain files from the table of the Administrative Assistant and shouted slogans. He saw the friction between the police and the students at the gate of the Collectorate. He saw the defendant pelting stones at the plaintiff, which hit him. The defendant, who was examined as DW1, denied the causing of alleged injury. According to him, the plaintiff might have sustained some injury due to fall while chasing the students from the scene. The defendant as DW1 denies having any direct involvement with the injury sustained -8- A.S.No.600/99 by the plaintiff. He has produced Ext.B1case diary, Ext.B2 scene mahazar, Ext.B3 sketch and Ext.B4 to Ext.B6(e) in support of his contentions. The defendant also examined DW2 to DW5. DW2 is the senior reporter of Deshabhimani newspaper, DW3 is the photographer attached to the Deshabhimani newspaper, DW4 is the Village Assistant, who prepared Ext.B3 sketch of the scene of occurrence and DW5 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation of the criminal case. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documents produced by the plaintiff and the defendant conclusively proved that the plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the incident occurred on 26/11/1991. The documents also show that the students including the defendant formed an unlawful assembly, created law and order problems and as a result of the scuffle, the plaintiff has sustained injuries. The defendant is admittedly the leader of the students. It is not disputed that there was a picketing at the R.D.O's Office and that the agitation started -9- A.S.No.600/99 about 15 days before the alleged incident. The plaintiff as PW1 testified before the court below that he saw the defendant throwing stone, which hit on his left leg as a result he sustained serious injuries. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff would go to show that the plaintiff has undergone treatment and was an inpatient for a period of five months in the P.V.S. Hospital, Kozhikode. It is also proved that the plaintiff had undergone surgery twice. Two eye witnesses examined as PW2 and PW3 also supported the case of the plaintiff. 8. The trial court examined the contentions of the respective parties on the basis of the evidence produced and positively held that the entirety of the evidence undoubtedly proved the wrongful act of the defendant. The finding entered by the trial court is based on the facts, evidence and circumstances. Though the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation under different heads, the trial court awarded only Rs.61,000/- with proportionate costs. -10- A.S.No.600/99 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that an amount of Rs.25,000/- decreed as compensation for the disability is wrong, since no disability certificate is produced. I do not think that the contention of the appellant has any force. In paragraph 19 of the judgment the trial court examined in detail the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under the head “permanent disability”. The trial court unequivocally held that the plaintiff has not produced satisfactory proof in support of his claim for permanent disability. Therefore, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for permanent disability; but taking into account the treatment undergone by the plaintiff for a period of five months as an inpatient and subsequent treatment and taking into account the fact that his bones on his left leg below the knee were fractured, the trial court held that he may not be able to perform to the best of his ability in future and that from the circumstances and the medical records produced, it is -11- A.S.No.600/99 clear that the plaintiff had to undergo treatment for a fairly long time and considering the said fact the trial court awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the disability caused to him. The trial court did not award any interest on the amount decreed. In all probability non-decreeing of interest on the sum decreed may be due to an inadvertent omission. The plaintiff is at liberty to move the trial court for correction of the judgment and decree. The trial court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, in case any such petition is filed. In the result, the appeal filed by the defendants stands dismissed with costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -12- A.S.No.600/99