R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.07.2009 1. Mangat Ram son of Shri Nagda Ram alias Nagda, 2. Subhash son of Shri Mangat Ram, r/o village Gholpura, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. 3. Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Zile Singh, r/o village Sahedpur, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. ... Appellants Versus Bhag Singh son of Shri Nagda Ram alias Naga, r/o Village Gholpura, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 25.09.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, for damages and interest, and the judgement and decree, dated 25.07.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 13.11.2001, at about 7/7.30 R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 2 A.M., the plaintiff/respondent, alongwith his son Sube Singh, had gone to his fields, for sowing wheat crop. On reaching there, he saw defendants/appellants No. 2 and 3, sowing wheat, in their fields, and defendant No. 1/appellant, ploughing their land. The common ridge of the fields of parties, as also the water-course, had been dismantled, by the defendants/appellants. When the plaintiff/respondent, objected to the act, aforesaid, defendant/appellant Mangat Ram, started abusing the plaintiff/respondent. An altercation, took place. Mangat Ram, inflicted a lathi blow, on the shoulder of the plaintiff/respondent. Defendant/appellant Pardeep, with an intent to kill him, caused injuries with the front wheel of the tractor, on his left foot, and left knee. The plaintiff/respondent, fell down. When his son Sube Singh, was trying to save him, the defendants/appellants, attacked him, as well. Sube Singh, fell down, and the defendants/appellants, gave him fist and leg blows. The plaintiff/respondent, and his son, raised cries of “save save”, upon which, Jaswant Singh, reached the spot, and saved them, from the cluthes of the defendants/appellants. Thereafter, the defendants/appellants, fled from the spot. Sube Singh, and his brother-in-law Ishwar Singh, took the plaintiff/respondent, to Civil Hospital, Karnal, where he and his son, were medico-legally examined, by the doctor, at about 11.00 AM. As per the x- ray report, there was a fracture of left femur, suffered by the plaintiff/respondent. The Police, was informed, and the statement of the plaintiff/respondent, was recorded. On receipt of the x-ray report, first information report No. 286, dated 22.11.2001, under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, against the defendants/appellants. Charge was framed, against the accused, by the then R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. It was further stated that the plaintiff/respondent, remained admitted, as indoor patient, in General Hospital, Karnal, and his leg, was operated upon. He spent Rs. 20,000/-, on his treatment, as indoor patient. He also incurred expenditure, on transportation. He remained bed ridden, for a long time, and was not, in a position to walk, due to fracture of his left femur. It was further stated that the plaintiff/respondent, had become handicapped, and could not do the agricultural work. He had suffered pecuniary loss, due to the injuries, caused by the defendants/appellants, on his person. It was further stated that he had become permanently disabled. The plaintiff/respondent, also underwent extreme mental agony, and physical pain, when he remained admitted, in the hospital. Ultimately, a suit for damages, in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, was filed. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent, had no locus-standi, to file the present suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent, came to the Court, by suppression of material facts. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent, had got no cause of action, to file the suit. It was stated that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, was premature, as the criminal case, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, was still pending. It was denied that the plaintiff/respondent, was an agriculturist, and was maintaining himself, and his family, from the income, from agriculture. It was further denied that the defendants/appellants, caused injuries, on the person of the plaintiff/respondent, as alleged, by him. It was stated that the R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 4 plaintiff/respondent, in collusion with local Police, falsely implicated the defendants/appellants, in a criminal case, bearing FIR No. 286, dated 22.11.2001, under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further stated that, it was yet to be ascertained, by the Court, whether the defendants/appellants, had caused injuries, on the person of the plaintiff/respondent, or not. It was further stated that the suit, was filed, by the plaintiff/respondent, only to extract money. It was denied that the plaintiff/respondent, remained admitted, in the hospital, as an indoor patient, for a long time, and spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, on his treatment. It was further denied that the plaintiff/respondent, had become physically handicapped, and the defendants/appellants, were liable, to pay compensation, to him. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, if so, to what effect? OPP ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD iii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD iv) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, with interest. 6 Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendants/appellants, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide judgement and decree dated 25.07.2008. R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 5 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendants/appellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the defendants/appellants, submitted that, no cogent and convincing evidence, was led, by the plaintiff/respondent, to prove, that the injuries, were caused, on his person, by the defendants/appellants. He further submitted that, on the other hand, the injuries, were caused, on the person of defendants/appellants, by the plaintiff/respondent and, as such, they were aggressive, but the trial Court, without taking into consideration, this aspect of the matter, held that they (defendants/appellants) caused injuries, on the person of the plaintiff/respondent. It was further submitted that since the criminal case, against the defendants/appellants, with regard to the alleged incident was pending, and had not been finally decided, a suit for damages, was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Courts below, was on the higher side. It was further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the defendants/appellants, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Sube Singh son of the plaintiff/respondent, appeared as PW1. He witnessed the occurrence. He, in clear-cut terms, deposed that on 13.11.2001, at about 7/7.30 AM, when he, and his father, went to their fields, the defendants/appellants, were present there. He further stated that R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 6 the common ridge of the fields, and the water course, had been dismantled, by the defendants/appellants, to which, his father objected to, and they (defendants/appellants), caused injuries, on his person. He also stated that the plaintiff/respondent, suffered fracture of left femur, and was operated upon. The statement of Sube Singh, PW1, was corroborated by Bhag Singh, plaintiff/respondent, injured, in this case. Further corroboration, to their statements, was provided by Dr. Rakesh Girdhar, PW4. No doubt, Dharam Singh, DW1, and Mangat Ram, DW2, denied having caused injuries, on the person of the plaintiff/respondent, yet their evidence, in this regard, was disbelieved, by the Courts below, for valid reasons. The theory, set up, by the defendants/appellants, that, in fact, the plaintiff/respondent, caused injuries, on their person, and, as such, he was the aggressor, and they were the aggressive, was not pleaded, by them, in their written statement. The Courts below, were, thus, right in discarding the evidence, produced by the plaintiff/respondent, in this regard, as the same, was beyond pleadings. It was also proved, that the plaintiff/respondent, remained admitted, in the hospital, for about one month, and was operated upon, for his left femur. The plaintiff/respondent, was aged about 55 years, at the time of occurrence. The income of the plaintiff/respondent, who was an agriculturist, was assessed, at Rs. 2700/- per month, by the Courts below. The Courts below, awarded Rs. 20,000/-, to the plaintiff/respondent, towards loss of earning, and earning capacity, Rs. 30,000/-, towards medical treatment, and other expenses, incurred on transportation, special diet etc. etc. and Rs. 10,000/-, for shortened expectation of life etc. In my opinion, the compensation, awarded by the Courts below, to the plaintiff/respondent, referred to above, could not be said to be, in any way, on the higher side. There was, no legal R.S.A. No. 3830 of 2008 7 bar, in filing the suit, for compensation, on account of the injuries, suffered by the plaintiff/respondent, at the hands of the defendants/appellants, during the pendency of criminal case, for the same incident, against the defendants/appellants. Criminal and civil proceedings, can proceed together, in respect of the same incident. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, that the injuries, were caused, on the person of the plaintiff/respondent, by the defendants/appellants, on 13.11.2001, as a result whereof, he (plaintiff/respondent), suffered fracture; that the plaintiff/respondent, remained admitted, in the hospital, for about one month, and spent, sufficient amount, on his medical expenses, transportation etc., as also underwent mental agony, and physical pain; and that he was entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs. 60,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality, or perversity, and, therefore, warrant, no interference. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the defendants/appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 22.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE