JUDGMENT : The victim in a Sessions Case, who sustained grievous injuries and disabilities in an attack by the accused therein, had filed a suit as O.S. No. 172 of 1995 before the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri claiming compensation. The learned Sub Judge decreed the suit by granting compensation to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest. Challenge is with respect to the said judgment and decree. 2. The parties are referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are as under: On 27.2.1994 at about 9.15 p.m. while the plaintiff was returning to his residence after offering prayers in a Mosque, was wrongfully restrained by the defendants 1 to 3 along with eleven others and attacked with deadly weapons such as iron rod, reaper, fire wood etc. and caused severe injuries to him. Though the plaintiff was immediately rushed to Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna, after providing first aid, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for expert management as injuries were grave and serious. He had undergone treatment as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode till 29.3.1994. He had also undergone a major surgery. The injuries caused him, to suffer hemiplegia and epilepsy. He was discharged with the advice to continue treatment for epilepsy. His life was saved by the expert treatment administered to him by the doctors in the Medical College Hospital. Even after discharge, he continued the treatment at the Medical College Hospital and due to the attack, he sustained heavy loss and damages and the defendants alone are responsible for the same. Hence, the suit for realization of a sum of Rs.1,79,000/- in total as compensation from the defendants. 4. The defendants refuted the plaint claim and denied the allegations levelled against them that they have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with 11 others and caused injuries to the plaintiff. In fact, a criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff and others for having attacked the defendants 1 and 3 with deadly weapons and in order to escape from the criminal liability, the plaintiff filed the suit raising false allegations. 5. Before the court below, the plaintiff was examined as PW 1. Apart from him, PWs 2 to 4 were also examined to support his case and Ext. 5. Before the court below, the plaintiff was examined as PW 1. Apart from him, PWs 2 to 4 were also examined to support his case and Ext. A1 to A7 were also marked. For the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B11 were marked. Ext. X1 series were also marked. The court below, after appreciation of the evidence, concluded that the plaintiff had sustained injuries in the attack by the defendants and he had to undergo pain and sufferings due to the same and hence he was entitled to realize the amount claimed by him as compensation and thus decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest to be realized from all the defendants and their assets. 6. Heard Adv. N. Haridas, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Adv. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff is a manual labourer aged only 45 years. Ext. B9 is the copy of the judgment in S.C. 107 of 1997 and S.C. 94 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri. The judgment would reveal that the police registered a case against 15 accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Then the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that in fact two persons arraigned as accused Nos.9 and 10 were not involved in the crime but another person who was involved in the crime was omitted and thereafter S.C.107 of 1997 was charge sheeted against the accused by the Sub Inspector of Police Pandikad for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148,149 and 307 IPC. As both these cases arise out of the very same incident, the cases were clubbed together and accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No. 94 of 1997 were found guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC and some others along with 1st accused were also found guilty under Section 323 IPC. Ext.B9 also reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No. 107 of 1997 and accused Nos. 4, 9 to 14 in S.C. 97 of 1997 were also found guilty under various offences and they were convicted for the said offences. The defendants in the suit are Mohammed Master, S/o. Abdulla Molla, Abdulla, S/o. Muhammed, and Alavi S/o Moideenkutty and they are accused Nos. 4, 9 to 14 in S.C. 97 of 1997 were also found guilty under various offences and they were convicted for the said offences. The defendants in the suit are Mohammed Master, S/o. Abdulla Molla, Abdulla, S/o. Muhammed, and Alavi S/o Moideenkutty and they are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in S.C. 94 of 1997. 8. The plaintiff as PW1 had testified that on that fateful night, at about 9.15 p.m., while he was returning from a Mosque after offering his prayers, the defendants along with 11 persons wrongfully restrained him and attacked him with deadly weapons. According to him, the first defendant had beaten him on his head with a reaper, the 2nd defendant had beaten him with a firewood and the 3rd defendant had inflicted injuries with a weapon on his head and the other accused persons aided the defendants to attack him and thus caused grievous injuries to him. 9. According to the plaintiff, he was rushed to Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna with bleeding from his right ear, from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for expert management as head injury was suspected. Ext.A5 is the accident cum wound certificate of the plaintiff submitted along with the complaint of the plaintiff before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. In that certificate it was specifically recorded that at 10.40 p.m on 27.2.1994 he was produced before the Medical Officer of Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna with bleeding from right ear and he was referred to Neuro Surgeon. The history noted is alleged assault by unknown persons by wooden sticks at Aamakkad Panthalloor on the same date. Ext. A3 is the treatment records of the plaintiff in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode which would show that he was referred from Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna and was admitted in the Medical College Hospital for treatment on 28.2.1994. The case sheet would further reveal that immediately on his admission, he had undergone surgery and he was treated as an inpatient till 29.3.1994. Ext.A3 would further reveal that he was subjected to tempro parietal craniectomy and evacuation extra dural hematoma was done on the very same day of his admission, ie; on 28.2.1994. The medical records would also reveal that he was unconscious for 4 days and had hemiplegia when he was brought to the Medical College Hospital. Ext.A3 would further reveal that he was subjected to tempro parietal craniectomy and evacuation extra dural hematoma was done on the very same day of his admission, ie; on 28.2.1994. The medical records would also reveal that he was unconscious for 4 days and had hemiplegia when he was brought to the Medical College Hospital. His discharge was on 29.3.1994 and the final diagnosis recorded was 'acute extra cural hematoma with left hemiplegia'. Ext.A4, the discharge certificate/treatment certificate of District Hosptial, Manjery, dated 22.10.2001 would show that the plaintiff was again admitted in the hospital on 20.10.2001 with seizure disorder and was discharged on 22.10.2001. The details entered in the certificate was 'previous history of head injury'. 10. PW2 is the doctor attached to the Department of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. According to him, he had examined the injured (the plaintiff) on 28.2.1994 and the patient was brought to the hospital in an unconscious stage and he had pupillary unequality and left hemiplegia. As he had head injury and complications immediately surgery was done. The doctor had testified that the injury caused to him resulted in hemiplegia and the injury may also lead to epilepsy. According to him the plaintiff remained unconscious till 4.3.1994 and he was administered with medicines to prevent epilepsy and the inequality of pupil was due to compression of nerves because of the injury sustained by him. Ext.A3 stands proved through PW2 the doctor who treated him while he was admitted in the hospital. From the medical records corroborated by the evidence of PW2 it is evident that the plaintiff had sustained head injury and that resulted in hemiplegia as well possibility of epilepsy and seizure in future. 11. The main question to be looked into in this case filed by the plaintiff for compensation is whether he sustained the injuries due to the attack by defendants 1 to 3 which would entitle him to claim the amount as compensation from the defendants. 12. As referred above, the plaintiff as PW1 narrated the whole episode in detail before the court below by which he sustained injuries. In fact a perusal of his deposition would show that though he was cross examined in length, nothing effectively was brought out in cross examination to discard his evidence that the defendants 1 to 3 inflicted injuries on him. In fact a perusal of his deposition would show that though he was cross examined in length, nothing effectively was brought out in cross examination to discard his evidence that the defendants 1 to 3 inflicted injuries on him. He had testified his case that the 1st defendant had beaten him with a wooden reaper, the 2nd defendant had beaten him with a fire wood and the third defendant had hit him with an iron rod on his head and thus they together along with some others attacked him, with the common intention to murder him. But his definite case is that the injuries were inflicted on him by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. They had attacked him after forming an unlawful assembly and in fact his case was that the attack was to commit his murder. But luckily due to the treatment undergone by him in the Medical College Hospital for more than one month, his life was saved. Still he is suffering from epilepsy and seizure as a result of the injuries sustained by him and he mainly relies on Ext.A5 and the evidence of PW2 in support of his case. 13. A perusal of the records would show that the Sub Inspector of Police had registered a crime (Crime No.19/1994 of Pandikkad Police Station) against defendants 2 and 3 and 13 others for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 read with 149 IPC. But the plaintiff who was having grievance for not registering case against the 1st defendant for having caused injuries to him with the intention to murder him had preferred a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Perinthalmanna and on his complaint, investigation was conducted and case had been registered against the first defendant also and both the cases were tried together before the Sessions Court as offences alleged against the accused in the private complaint was under Sections 143, 147, 148, 328, 341, 307 read with 149 IPC. 14. As per a judgment dated 26.2.2003 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the defendants 1 to 3 along with some of the other accused under Section 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The said conviction and sentence were challenged by the defendants 1 to 3 and others in Crl.Appeal No.382/2003. 14. As per a judgment dated 26.2.2003 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the defendants 1 to 3 along with some of the other accused under Section 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The said conviction and sentence were challenged by the defendants 1 to 3 and others in Crl.Appeal No.382/2003. The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants 1 to 3 in Crl.Appeal No.382/2003. Crl.Appeal No. 392/2003 was the appeal filed by the accused in S.C 107/1997. The injured had also preferred Crl. Appeal No.1569/2004 alleging that the sentence imposed against the accused are inadequate. So also the finding of the trial court that the case do not attract Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, was also assailed in the appeal. By a common judgment, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the injured/plaintiff and the other appeals filed by the defendants 1 to 3 and others were allowed in part. In SC No.94/2007 the finding that the defendants 1 to 3 (accused No.1 to 3) have committed offence under Section 326 and 323 of IPC was confirmed, but modified the sentence and no separate sentence was imposed in SC No.107/97. So it is revealed from this judgment that grievous hurt had been caused to the plaintiff by the defendants 1 to 3 and the other accused. 15. The question to be looked into is whether the plaintiff is entitled to realize any amount as compensation for the injuries caused on him by the defendants 1 to 3 as mentioned earlier by the plaintiff who had narrated the incident in detail. 16. According to him the main attack was by the defendants 1 to 3 and they had caused grievous injuries on him inflicting fracture on his head. 17. PW3 who is also an injured in the case had supported the case of the plaintiff and his wound certificate was also proved in evidence. PW4 is also an injured who sustained injuries along with the plaintiff. PW3 and 4 are the eye witnesses who rushed to the spot to rescue the plaintiff and they too sustained injuries. The evidence of the plaintiff stands fully corroborated by the evidence of the eye witnesses as well the injured. 18. Of course, by Ext.B5 it is seen that a counter case has also been filed against the plaintiff and others and it ended in acquittal. The evidence of the plaintiff stands fully corroborated by the evidence of the eye witnesses as well the injured. 18. Of course, by Ext.B5 it is seen that a counter case has also been filed against the plaintiff and others and it ended in acquittal. The evidence of the plaintiff was cogent and trustworthy to justify conviction of the defendants1 to 3. Here, the issue involved is only with regard to the compensation claimed by him. As discussed above, the plaintiff had to remain unconscious for more than six days in the Medical College hospital because of the injuries sustained in the attack by defendants 1 to 3 along with some others. He had to undergo treatment for about one month as an inpatient. Ext.A5 coupled with the evidence of PW2, the doctor it is clear that as result of the complication, he is even now suffering from seizure and epilepsy. So it could be seen that though he was a healthy man before the incident, became a patient of seizure and epilepsy due to the head injury sustained by him in the incident and he had to live long with all the complications of the injuries sustained, in future. Of-course, it is pertinent to note that there are provisions in the code of criminal procedure for providing compensation to the injured/victims under Section 357 A and 357 of Cr.P.C. Of-course, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered as compensation by the trial court. But that will not deprive his right from claiming compensation by approaching the civil court as the jurisdiction of civil court is different. Even if compensation had been granted by the Sessions Court, the plaintiff is entitled to approach the civil court to get compensation for any harm suffered by him, though the standard of proof is different. 19. In this backdrop the next issue that crop up for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount claimed as compensation from the defendants. The quantum of compensation depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. No strait jacket formula is practicable to decide the quantum of compensation. Here, in total an amount of Rs.1,79,000/- was claimed under different heads. The quantum of compensation depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. No strait jacket formula is practicable to decide the quantum of compensation. Here, in total an amount of Rs.1,79,000/- was claimed under different heads. Except two items, i.e; the amount of Rs.4500/- claimed as expenses for the bystanders and Rs.2000/- for the travelling expenses of his relatives who visited him in the hospital, all other heads were allowed by the court below. Whether any interference is warranted in the case has to be evaluated on the evidence on record. Admittedly he was aged only 45 years. He was a coolie worker engaged with daily labour. Till the incident he was quite hale and healthy and was managing his family by doing manual labour. It has come out in evidence that he was admitted in the hospital for more than one month. In fact he remained unconscious for about four days. It has also come out in evidence that as a consequence of the injuries sustained by him he had the complication of seizure and epilepsy and he was even admitted in the hospital because of the same. There was no prior incident of epilepsy or seizure for him. So his case is fortified by the evidence on record. The defendants have no case that the plaintiff is not suffering from any illness as result of the complication of the injuries sustained by him. Though such a contention was raised by them they could not adduce any satisfactory evidence to reject/decline his case. It is to be noted that he had claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/-as the treatment expenses. Though he was treated in the Medical College Hospital, he had to continue the follow up treatment and hence, it is not possible to conclude that the amount claimed as Rs.20,000/- for the treatment undergone by him is exorbitant. An amount of Rs.5500/- was claimed as travelling expenses. The amount cannot be said to be exorbitant as he is a resident of Perinthalmanna and he had to travel upto Kozhikode for availing the treatment. 20. An amount of Rs.50,000/- had been claimed for the pain and sufferings undergone by him due to the attack of the defendants 1 to 3. As he sustained grievous attack including head injury in the incident, the amount claimed by him is quite reasonable. 20. An amount of Rs.50,000/- had been claimed for the pain and sufferings undergone by him due to the attack of the defendants 1 to 3. As he sustained grievous attack including head injury in the incident, the amount claimed by him is quite reasonable. Under the head of loss of capacity, he claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. As the injuries were on his head definitely it had affected his work as he was only a coolie worker. The records would indicate that his whole family was depending on him for their livelihood. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. He was looking after the family by doing coolie works. Since, he being a coolie worker definitely he had to take rest for considerable period before resuming his daily work. 21. The court below considered the entire aspects involved in the case and concluded that he would earn at least an amount of Rs.150/- per day and he lost the said amount for quite some time as a result of the injuries sustained by him especially because of the injuries sustained on his head. So the amount lost by way of income was calculated at the rate of Rs.1,08,000/- per year. Since the claim was limited the court below had awarded in total an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as damages/compensation for the injuries sustained by him from the defendants 1 to 3. 22. I have meticulously gone through the entire evidence adduced by the parties. There is no evidence to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff that he had sustained injuries from the defendants and because of the injuries he had to remain idle in the house with untold miseries. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is proved by reliable evidence that the whole family was depending upon him for their livelihood and he had to meet the expenses for the education of his children. Such being the state of affairs, I find no valid ground to interfere with the amount claimed as loss of income and compensation for the sufferings undergone by him in the attack by the defendants. In fact the defendants could not adduce any evidence to discard the deposition of the plaintiff corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses and medical evidence before the court below. 23. In fact the defendants could not adduce any evidence to discard the deposition of the plaintiff corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses and medical evidence before the court below. 23. On the above analysis, I hold that there is absolutely no valid or justifiable reason to interfere with the findings of the court below. The plaintiff is entitled to take recourse to this type of legal remedy and realize compensation. The amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded as compensation/damages for the injuries sustained by him in the attack by the defendants does not appear to be exorbitant. Civil Courts would rise to the occasion for redressal of grievance of victims and compensate for the injustice done by miscreants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any interference. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.