Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1216 (PNJ)

Mangat Ram v. Bhag Singh

2009-07-22

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006 rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which it decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent for damages and interest and the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008, rendered by the court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which it dismissed the appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that on 13.11.2001 at about 7/7.30 a.m., plaintiff-respondent along with his son Sube Singh had gone to his fields for sowing wheat crop. On reaching there, he saw defendants-appellant Nos. 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 watercourse had been dismantled by the defendants-appellants. When plaintiff-respondent objected to the act aforesaid, defendant-appellant Mangat Ram started abusing plaintiff-respondent. An altercation took place. Mangat Ram inflicted a lathi blow on the shoulder of the plaintiff-respondent. Defendant-appellant Pradeep 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, 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 clutches 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 a.m. 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, F.I.R. 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. Charges were framed against the accused by the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted as indoor patient in the 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. Charges were framed against the accused by the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted as indoor patient in the 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 bedridden 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 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. 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 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 plaintiff- respondent as alleged by him. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondent, in collusion with the local police falsely implicated the defendants-appellants in a criminal case bearing F.I.R. 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 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, along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent 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 learned 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 defendants-appellants which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the documents on record carefully. 9. The counsel for defendants-appellants submitted that no cogent and convincing evidence was led by plaintiff-respondent to prove that the injuries were caused on his person by the defendants-appellants. He further submitted that on the other hand, injuries were caused on the person of defendants-appellants by the plaintiff- respondent and as such they were aggressee but the trial court without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter held that they (defendants-appellants) caused the injuries on the person of the plaintiff- respondent. It was further submitted that since the criminal case against 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 since the criminal case against 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 judgments 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 PW 1. He witnessed the occurrence. He in clear-cut terms deposed that on 13.11.2001 at about 7/7.30 a.m., when he and his father went to their fields the defendants-appellants were present there. He further stated that the common ridge of the fields and the watercourse had been dismantled by the defendants-appellants to which his father objected and they (defendants-appellants) caused injuries on his person. He has also stated that the plaintiff-respondent suffered fracture of left femur and was operated upon. The statement of Sube Singh, PW 1, was corroborated by Bhag Singh, plaintiff- respondent, injured in this case. Further corroboration to their statements was provided by Dr. Rakesh Girdhar, PW 4. No doubt, Dharam Singh, DW 1 and Mangat Ram, DW 2, denied having caused injuries on the person of plaintiff-respondent, yet the 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 aggressee was not pleaded by them in their written statement. The courts below were thus right in discarding the evidence produced by the defendants-appellants 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 plaintiff-respondent, who was an agriculturist, was assessed at Rs. 2,700 per month by the courts below. The courts below awarded Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff-respondent towards loss of earnings and earning capacity, Rs. The plaintiff-respondent was aged about 55 years at the time of occurrence. The income of plaintiff-respondent, who was an agriculturist, was assessed at Rs. 2,700 per month by the courts below. The courts below awarded Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff-respondent towards loss of earnings and earning capacity, Rs. 30,000 for medical treatment and other expenses incurred on transportation, special diet, etc. and Rs. 10,000 for shortened expectation of life. 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 bar in filing the suit for compensation on account of the injuries suffered by 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 and 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 at the rate of 6 per cent 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 judgments and decrees of the courts below are liable to be upheld. The submission of learned 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.