KAPIL DEO NARAIN RAI Vs. SARABJIT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal. As a result of the defendant-respondents, it is said the plaintiff became entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 10,100/- as damages from them. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he was caught hold of by several persons from amongst the respon dents and acid thrown over him resulting in severe injuries to him. The culprits were criminally prosecuted and eventually convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for their action. In the suit the plaintiff had claimed the aforesaid sum of Rs. 10,100/- as payable to him on the following counts : (1) Expenditure of Rs. 500/- incurred by him for his treatment and stay in Ballia hospital. (2) Rs. 500/- as expenditure incurred by him in connection with his treatment in Hazratganj Civil Hospital, Lucknow. (3) Rs. 1500/- as amount spent in plastic surgery treatment. (4) Rs. 800/- spent by him for special food and medicines during the period of his treatment. (5) Rs, 500/- as compensation for permanent disfiguration of face, eyes, neck, arms, elbovv, ears and impairment of eye-sight. (6) Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental and bodily pain. That trial Court believed the plaintiff's case and decreed it in its enti rety. The defendants went up in appall and the lower appellate Court varied the decree. It upheld the plaintiff's claim in respect of recovery by him of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- only. It, however, set aside the decree for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. In the result, the decree of the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was for a sum of Rs. 8,100/ -. The recovery of this amount was directed from the various defendants except Jagdish, who was found not liable, and in regard to the sons of Raj Kishore Rai it was made executable only as against the assets that they inherited from their father who was amongst the culprits. The plaintiff has now come up to this Court in the present second appeal. The lower appellate Court has, as noticed above, upheld the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the various amounts totaling a sum of Rs. 8. 100/ -. It has, however, set aside the decree of the trial Court in respect of the sum of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by that Court as compensation for mental and bodily pain to the plaintiff, The lower appellate Court observed, in this connection, that "the plaintiff, however, might have obtained satisfaction because of the fact that the culprits had been sent to jail for ten years. It is a strong reason for mitigating damages; since the plaintiff has obtained satisfaction in that manner it would meet the ends of justice if compensation for mental and bodily pain is not awarded to him. So a decree in the sum of Rs. 8,100/- only should be passed in his favour. " Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, has urged that the aforesaid view of the lower appellate Court is not sustainable in law and that the fact that the culprits had to suffer imprisonment on account of their criminal act could not be held to be a mitigating circumstance for disallowing the plaintiff any amount by way of damages for mental and bodily pain. There is substance in this submission. The right of a victim of the Criminal Act, like the plaintiff, to claim damages on account of mental and bodily pain suffered by him due to the action of the culprits is, by now a settled right in law. The extract of the judgment of the lower appellate Court noticed above also suggests that the learned Judge did not consider that is not so. The question, however, as to whether the fact that the culprits had suffered imprisonment for their criminal act can be treated to be a mitigating circumstance for disallowing any amount by way of compensation for mental and bodily pain remains to be considered. The claim for mental and bodily pain is founded upon the fact that the victim, claiming the damages, has suffered pain as a result of the criminal action of the defendants. The bodily pain obviously cannot be mitigated by any suffering which the culprits may have to undergo on account of their imprisonment. As far as the mental suffering, accompanying such physical assault, of a victim like the plaintiff is concerned, it is obvious that it has to be correlated to the point of time when he sustains injuries and during the continuance of the period of his treatment for the injuries so sustained. The fact that a later stage the culprits, who were responsible for physical injury, with the accompanying mental suffering, to the plaintiff were sent to Jail can hardly have much relevance to the question of the agony suffered by the victim of their Criminal Act. In law, therefore, the subsequent conviction and imprisonment of the perpetrators of the crime resulting in injuries to the plaintiff, who is the victim of the assault, cannot bs taken into account as a mitigating circumstance as has been done by the lower appellate Court. The decree of the lower appellate Court to that extent is clearly contrary to law. Coming now to the question of the quantum of damages under this head, it is clear that there has been no dispute about it before the Courts below. It doss not appear from the judgment either trial Court or that. of the lower appellate Court that they ever felt that the amount of Rs. 2,000/-claimed by the plaintiff under the head of mental and bodily pain was excessive. That amount, which was claimed by the plaintiff as damages under that conjoint head of claim is, therefore, held to be the amount to which he was entitled. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The plaintiff's suit shall stand decreed for the entire sum of Rs. 10,1000/- as had been done by the trial Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. .