JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the defendants against the impugned judgment recorded by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur whereby he returned affirmative findings qua the plaintiff’s entitlement to claim damages from defendant No.1 also thereupon he assessed damages qua the plaintiff comprised in a sum of Rs.22000/- along with 9% interest from the date of decree till realization, liability whereof qua its defrayment stood fastened upon defendant No.1. 2. The plaintiff also stands aggrieved by the pronouncement recorded by the learned Court below whereupon it assessed damages vis-à-vis him in the sum aforesaid, quantum whereof stands contended here before to be grossly disproportionate to his apposite entitlement thereof besides the plaintiff stands aggrieved by the pronouncement recorded by the learned District Judge whereby it fastened liability qua the quantum of damages assessed there under vis-à-vis the plaintiff only upon defendant No.1 whereas it was jointly and severably fastenable upon all the defendants. 3. In an incident which occurred on 15.3.1997 in the Court of the Sr. Sub Judge, Hamirpur the plaintiff alleges qua his therein standing assaulted by the defendant No.1 besides his standing humiliated in the presence of people present thereat where after despite the plaintiff for averting perpetration of further assaults upon him by defendant No.1 proceeding to the litigant hall, yet the defendant No.1 chasing him there upto whereat he meted threats to him. The plaintiff also avers qua on 15.3.1997 at about 4.45 p.m. when he was returning home on his scooter all the defendants forcibly stopping him at Gandhi Gate in sequel whereto he avers qua his falling on the ground where after the defendants stand averred to belabor him with kick and fist blows in consequence whereof he sustained injuries on his nose, forehead, teeth and eyebrows. Also he avers qua his thereat standing intimidated by the defendants for his conducting case Onkar Walia versus Urmila in the Court of Sub Judge, Hamirpur against Urmila daughter of defendant No.1, sister of defendant No.2 and mother of defendant No.3. The plaintiff further avers qua on 17.3.1997 at about 9.30 a.m. when he was proceeding on his scooter to Court all the defendants forcibly stopped him near Satyanarayan Mandir whereat he stood manhandled by defendant No.1. 4. An FIR qua the incident bearing No. 59/07 stood lodged by the plaintiff against the defendants at Police Station, Hamirpur. The plaintiff further avers qua on 17.3.1997 at about 9.30 a.m. when he was proceeding on his scooter to Court all the defendants forcibly stopped him near Satyanarayan Mandir whereat he stood manhandled by defendant No.1. 4. An FIR qua the incident bearing No. 59/07 stood lodged by the plaintiff against the defendants at Police Station, Hamirpur. The primadonna factum of the incidents aforesaid which occurred on 15.3.1997 and on 17.3.1997 respectively in the Court premises besides in the evening of the day aforesaid at Gandhi Gate and thereafter on 17.03.1997 at 9.30 A.M. near Satyanarayan Mandir warranted theirs standing unflinchingly proved by cogent reliable evidence standing adduced by the plaintiff whereupon the plaintiff would stand entitled to pecuniary damages for proven acts of tort of assault and battery standing perpetrated upon him. 5. In proof of the incident No.1 aforesaid, the plaintiff relied upon the testifications of PWs 5, 6 and 7, all of whom rendered a credible account qua the incident which occurred on 15.3.1997in the Court premises. The oral testifications of the afore-stated ocular witnesses to the incident which occurred in the Court premises warrants imputation of credence thereto conspicuously when their respective testifications occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief remained unshared of their tenacity besides efficacy during the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination whereto they respectively stood subjected to by the learned counsel for the defendants. In sequel thereto the ascriptions made by the plaintiff in the suit qua defendant No.1 assaulting him in the Court premises stands invincibly proven. 6. The testification of the plaintiff in proof of the incident which occurred in the evening of 15.3.1997 at Gandhi Gate wherein he stood belabored by the defendants stands meted corroboration by the testification of an eye witness thereto who deposed as PW-6. The testification of PW-6 in corroboration to the testification of the plaintiff warrants imputation of credence thereto arising from the factum of his testification qua the relevant fact embodied in his examination-in-chief remaining uneroded during the ordeal of an exacting cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned counsel for the defendants. 7. The testification of PW-6 in corroboration to the testification of the plaintiff warrants imputation of credence thereto arising from the factum of his testification qua the relevant fact embodied in his examination-in-chief remaining uneroded during the ordeal of an exacting cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned counsel for the defendants. 7. The incident of 17.3.1997 which occurred at 9.30 a.m. at Satyanaryan Mandir, holding ascriptions therein qua the defendant No.1 manhandling the plaintiff, for obviation of his further man handlings thereat by the defendant No.1 he stood evacuated by the people present thereat where after he fled there from and arrived in the premises of the Bar Association located in the Court campus where upto also he stood chased by defendant No.1 also thereat the defendant No.1 unsuccessfully concerted to perpetrate an assault upon him stands proven by the un-eroded testification of the plaintiff, untainted corroboration whereto stands meted by PW-11 the then Pradhan of Bar Association, Hamirpur. In sequel thereto the incident aforesaid which occurred on 17.3.1997 near Satyanarayan Temple wherein the defendant No.1 manhandled the plaintiff also the incident subsequent thereto which occurred in the premises of the Bar Association located in the Court premises stands also emphatically proven. 8. Be that as it may the FIR borne on Ex.PW-2/A lodged with Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur by PW-11 sequelled the preferment before the Court concerned a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer concerned. A charge in consonance therewith stood framed against the relevant accused yet the fate of the apposite charge is not evincible from the record which is available here at. Conspicuously with the charge framed by the Court concerned against the accused named in the FIR Ex.PW-2/A remaining un-adjudicated by the trial Magistrate also does not purvey any vigour to the concert of the defendants to espouse qua thereupon the credible testimonies of PWs standing benumbed rather with co-accused/Juvenile at the relevant stage one Gaurav Walia against whom too penal ascriptions stand averred by the plaintiff when as unravled by a verdict recorded by the Juvenile Court embodied in Ex. PW-5/G stands convicted in respect thereto does give leverage to the espousal of the plaintiff qua his thereupon succeeding in establishing the averments constituted in the complaint qua in the evening of 15.3.1997 the defendants jointly at Gandhi Gate belaboring him with kick and fist blows. 9. PW-5/G stands convicted in respect thereto does give leverage to the espousal of the plaintiff qua his thereupon succeeding in establishing the averments constituted in the complaint qua in the evening of 15.3.1997 the defendants jointly at Gandhi Gate belaboring him with kick and fist blows. 9. The effect of the aforesaid discussion brings to the fore the inevitable sequel of the plaintiff succeeding in proving his averments qua the defendant No.1 and other co-defendants respectively at the places afore-stated jointly apart there from singularly perpetrating upon him tort of assault and battery also theirs meteing intimidations to him. However, the defendants had concerted to exculpate their liability qua pecuniary damages standing assessed vis-à-vis the plaintiff arising from his/theirs in the afore-stated manner his/theirs respectively jointly besides singularly at the places aforesaid perpetrating tort of assault and battery upon him, by anvilling upon registration of FIR No. 61/97 against the plaintiff, yet with Ex.P-7 making an open pronouncement therein qua the Judicial Magistrate concerned accepting the proposal made in the apposite report furnished before the Court concerned by the Investigating Officer qua the FIR aforesaid warranting cancellation renders the aforesaid espousal by the defendants qua the relevant facet to stand benumbed. Also with a criminal complaint instituted by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff as apparent from an order borne on Ex.DA standing anvilled upon a statement of the complainant borne on Ex.DB whereupon it stood ordered to be withdrawn sequels an inference of defendant No.1 making an unsuccessful bid to exculpate his liability for assessment of pecuniary damages qua the plaintiff arising from his perpetrating assault and battery upon him, contrarily the afore-stated pronouncements occurring in Ex. P-7 and in Ex.DA make loud echoings qua the defendants contriving to falsely implicate the plaintiff also connotes their acquiescence qua the ascriptions made qua them by the plaintiff holding sinew besides vigor. 10. The MLC comprised in Ex.PW-9/A proven by PW-9 unravels qua multiple injuries occurring on the person of the plaintiff. The aforesaid pronouncements made in the afore-stated MLC give succor to the testification of the plaintiff besides his witnesses qua the defendants jointly at Gandhi Gate belaboring the plaintiff with fist and kick blows. 11. 10. The MLC comprised in Ex.PW-9/A proven by PW-9 unravels qua multiple injuries occurring on the person of the plaintiff. The aforesaid pronouncements made in the afore-stated MLC give succor to the testification of the plaintiff besides his witnesses qua the defendants jointly at Gandhi Gate belaboring the plaintiff with fist and kick blows. 11. The learned Court below had aptly for lack of cogent evidence declined quantification of pecuniary damages to the plaintiff as stood claimed by him for loss of professional income besetting him arising from his clientele suffering erosion in sequel to the proven incidents of assault besides battery standing perpetrated on his person respectively singularly by defendant No.1 also by other co-defendants while joining defendant No. 1 at places aforesaid. However with the plaintiff adducing unflinching evidence unraveled by the MLC aforesaid in proof of the factum of his standing assaulted besides his suffering injuries in the relevant incidents of assault and battery preponderantly also with the evident factum of his standing subjected to repeated assaults by defendant No.1 did entail upon the learned trial Court to compute qua the plaintiff pecuniary damages in a figure higher than the one which stood computed vis-à-vis him. Even though there is no unbending rule of inflexible rigor for purveying guidance in measuring besides calibrating monetary damages assessable qua a victim of tort of assault and battery yet dehors the aforesaid lack of rigid guidelines for computing pecuniary damages to a victim of proven tort of assault and battery, the status of the victim also the places whereat it evidently occurred ultimately the repetitive perpetration of assaults upon his person singularly by defendant No.1 also with the latter standing joined by other co-defendants are relevant parameters which are always to be borne in mind. Cumulatively bearing in mind besides meteing deference to the aforesaid factors it is deemed fit and appropriate to conclude qua computation of Rs.22000/- as pecuniary damages vis-à-vis the plaintiff on account of his standing subjected to proven tort of assault and battery respectively by defendant No.1 at two places afore-stated besides by all the defendants jointly in the evening of 15.3.1997 at Gandhi Gate, being a meager besides a scanty amount whereupon this Court is constrained to modify the aforesaid figure of pecuniary damages in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac). Also with the plaintiff proving ascriptions made by him vis-à-vis the defendant No.1 qua his perpetrating assault upon him singularly at two places besides with an evident display occurring of co-defendants joining defendant No.1in perpetrating an assault upon his person in the evening of 15.3.1997 at Gandhi Gage warranted the learned trial Court to hold decree qua all defendants being jointly and severely liable to pay pecuniary damages to the plaintiff especially when they were proven tortfeasor whereas its fastening the relevant liability singularly upon defendant No.1 has committed an error. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. Cross-objections are allowed to the extent qua pecuniary damages vis-à-vis the plaintiff standing enhanced from Rs.22,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- also all the defendants are held jointly liable to defray to the plaintiff the aforesaid amount of damages.