IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RSA.No. 895 of 2009() --------------------- AS.65/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI OS.20/1999 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT,PERINTHALMANNA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- KAITHAMATTATH MATHEW @ MATHEWKUTTY, S/O.K.ANTONY,PALACHODE,KARUVAMBALAM AMSOM, MALAPARAMBA DESOM,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------- 1. KAITHAMATTATH ANTONY,S/O.K.ANTONY, PALACHODE,KARUVAMBALAM AMSOM,MALAPARAMBA DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. ELIKUTTY,W/O.KAITHAMATTATH ANTONY, PALACHODE,KARUVAMBALAM AMSOM,MALAPARAMBA DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.S.A.NO.895 OF 2009 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.20/1999 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Perinthalmanna is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.65/2002 on the file of the Additional District Court (Adhoc)-I, Manjeri. The suit for damages was decreed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 2. The lst plaintiff and defendant are brothers. There exists a dispute between them in respect of the user of a pathway. It is alleged that on 25/1/1996 the defendant poured formic acid on the body of the lst plaintiff. According to the lst plaintiff, the defendant was carried formic acid in a bucket. As a result of the pouring of the forming acid the lst plaintiff sustained burn injury. The defendant also caused severe burn injury to the 2nd plaintiff, who is the wife of the lst plaintiff and her daughter -2- R.S.A.No.895/2009 Jismy. It is stated that the burn injuries sustained on the neck, chest, hands and back of the lst plaintiff, on the face, chest, and stomach of the 2nd plaintiff and on the face and hands of their daughter. The plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages for the injuries sustained. Disfiguration costs and treatment expenses incurred on account of this incident. Defendant in the written statement denied the overt act as alleged by the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. The evidence consists of oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6, DW-1, Exts.A1 to A12 and Exts.B1 to B5. The plaintiffs were examined as PWs.1 and 2. Both of them contested that the defendant poured acid on the body of PWs.1 and 2 and that they sustained injuries. Defendant was examined as DW-1. According to PW-1, the incident happened on 25/1/1996 between 7-30 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. PW-3 is the Doctor, who issued Exts. A1 and A2 wound certificates. PW-4 is the Professor of Kozhikode Medical College. He testified that PW-1was admitted in the Medical College on 28/1/1996 and PW-2 was on -3- R.S.A.No.895/2009 30/1/1996. PWs.1 and 2 were discharged from the Medical College on 24/2/1996. Ext.A3 series are the discharge cards and Ext.A4 series are the discharge certificates. In Ext.A4(a) PW-4 noted 30% burns due to formic acid and acute renal failure to PW-2. PW-4 also issued Ext.P5 series showing the details of injuries noted by him on PW-1. After examining the oral and documentary evidence on record and after discussing in detail the testimonies of each and every witness, the trial court held that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clearly proved that PWs.1 and 2 sustained serious burn injuries and acute renal failure due to pouring of forming acid. The trial court also noted that Exts.A12 series shows the nature of injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 and that the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and Ext.A12 series prove that the injuries are grevious in nature and those are not an accidental one. The trial court also noted that apart from the interested testimony of PW-1, the defendant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his contentions. Finally, the trial court concluded that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and Exts.A1 to A5 series and -4- R.S.A.No.895/2009 Ext.A12 series clearly prove that the burn injuries were sustained by PWs.1 and 2 and those were caused by the defendant by pouring acid on them. The further question regarding the damages was also discussed in detail by the trial court. The trial court noted the fact that for the treatment at the hospital the plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards damages and for disfiguration caused due to burn injuries an amount of Rs.5,000/- alone was claimed. Ext.A6 series (112 in numbers) of receipts for purchase of medicines and receipts from the Lab etc. were produced to prove their medical expenses. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that Rs.50,000/- claimed as compensation towards medical expenses, loss of earnings of PW-1 and pain and suffering is reasonable. Therefore, the decree was passed allowing the plaintiffs to recover an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages from the defendant. 4. In the appeal filed by the defendant, the Lower Appellate Court re-examined and re-appreciated the evidence on -5- R.S.A.No.895/2009 record. The Appellate Court also agreed with the findings of the trial court and held that the case set out in the plaint is completely established and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation claimed by them. 5. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are solely based on the oral and documentary evidence. I am of the view that the decision arrived at by the courts below cannot be assailed successfully by the appellant in this appeal. The views taken by the courts below are the only possible views in the given facts and circumstances. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.