RSA No.1554 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1554 of 2007 Date of decision: January 17, 2011 Baljinder Singh .....Appellant Versus Dalbir Singh etc. .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Baljinder Singh minor filed a suit for recovery of damages against the defendants. The suit filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2005 for recovery of ` 1,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 25.02.1994 till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 filed separate appeals. Vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006, the Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court Ludhiana dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the present appeal by the RSA No.1554 of 2007 2 plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the mother of the plaintiff-Gurmit Kaur had been maltreated for demand of dowry. On 25.2.1994, Gurmit Kaur died an unnatural death by consuming poison. The case was registered against defendants under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Plaintiff was only two and a half year old at that time. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff on account of loss of motherly care and attention. Defendants, in their written statements, denied the contents in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff was in illegal custody of Hardial Singh. Defendants were ready to maintain the plaintiff. Plaintiff was to inherit the property of defendant No.1 being his legal heir. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1, Whether Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of amount as prayed for?OPP 2.Whether suit is hit by estoppel and unclean hands?OPD 3.Relief.” This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff seeking enhancement of the amount of damages awarded by the Courts below. The Courts below have allowed compensation to the tune of ` 1,45,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest from the date of death of Gurmit Kaur. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Since the parties are closely related to each other, the matter was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Defendant RSA No.1554 of 2007 3 No.1, who is present in person in the Court, showed his willingness to keep and maintain the plaintiff. Plaintiff, who is present in person in the Court, also showed his willingness to live with his father. However, the parties were at variance qua distribution of land owned by defendant No.1 and, hence, no compromise could be effected between the parties. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the decretal amount has already been deposited by the defendants. Defendants have also paid ` 45,000/- to the plaintiff in terms of compensation awarded in the criminal proceedings. The amount of damages allowed by the trial Court cannot be said to be on the lower side. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 17, 2011 arya