RAMESH MANEKLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dtd. 31st July, 1997, passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar in Special Civil Suit NO. 19/92 whereby the suit for compensation of Rs.60,000/has been dismissed with costs.

(2.) It is the plaintiff's First Appeal. The plaintiff came with a case that he was running a shop in Village Sapar. On 30th September, 1986, he had gone to the market to inquire as to whether kerosene was available or not. At that time, he sustained injury on his right thigh and on that account he had to remain as an indoor patient, after taking first aid in Chotila hospital. He was, then taken to Civil Hospital, Rajkot for operation and there he remained for 2 to 2.1/2 months and thereafter also treatment continued for a period of one year. Despite this, he is not able to walk normally and could not do his normal business and he has sufferred permanent disability. That the plaintiff also came with a case that he then came to know that there was a dispute between to communities namely Koli and Bharavad and on that account, there was a sudden Police Firing. The Police had opened fire without any reason, the firing was unlawful and on account of such firing, he has sufferred permanent injuries resulting in to permanent disability. It was also the case of the plaintiff that he had spent a sum of Rs.20,000.00 for medicine and for going and coming to Rajkot. He also claimed Rs.18,000/against loss of his income because he had to remain as an indoor patient. The plaintiff says that he was married person with three children and the entire responsibility was upon him. Because of the injury, the income was reduced. That he sustained bullet injury at the hands of Police employee/officer whereas the Police employee/officer had no right or justification to fire. The police had opened the firing without any reason and therefore, the State of Gujarat was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Further a Sessions Case No. 84/88 was tried against 27 Bharavads for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the I.P.C. including Sections 332, 147, and 148 and the Sessions case was decided on 31st July, 1991 and therefore, according to Article 12 of the Limitation Act, limitation would start from the date of the termination of proceedings in the Criminal case, and therefore, the suit was within limitation. The Limitation should be treated to have commenced from 1/10/91. He has also stated that in the proceedings before the Sessions Court, injured persons were to be compensated but the Sessions Court did not grant compensation to anybody. He claimed compensation of Rs.60,000.00 and interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

(3.) The suit was filed in forma pauperis with Civil Application No.65/91. That application was allowed and thereupon Civil Suit was registered at NO.19/92. In the Civil Suit, on behalf of the State of Gujarat, reply was filed in which inter-alia it was stated that the suit had been filed without any notice under Sec.80 C.P.C., and it was time barred. The allegation that the plaintiff had sustained injury on 30th September, 1986 as a result of firing and other pleadings with regard to receiving treatment, permanent disability, spending of Rs.20,000/towards medicine etc. were denied. According to the village Sapar to control the dispute between Rabaries and village Sapar to control the dispute between Rabari and Koli. In the Police party, Digvijaysinh Jambha and Nirubhai Kalyansinh were on duty on 30/9/1986 as Constables. About 100 to 150 Rabaries were moving in the village with arms while Police constables were briefing the Rabaries, the Rabaries attacked the Police Constables and even tried to snatch the rifle from the police constables. The police constables, then made first firing in the air, the mob did not retreat, therefore, police constables after giving warning had to open the firing in their self-defence, in which two persons were injured and police Constable Digvijaysinh also sustained injuries. Since the mob was out of control and no officer was present on spot, there was no time to seek permission of the higher officer, as the life of the constables on duty, was in peril. It was a case of firing in their own defence. On the basis of these pleadings, it was submitted that the suit was liable to be dismissed.