GHUKAR SINGH Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE its assailed judgment and decree dated 13.6.1978 in Civil Suit No. 6 filed on 13.1.1976 learned trial court granted to the Plaintiff -Respondent Bhagwan Singh a decree for recovery of Rs. 64,700/ - (Rupees sixty -four thousand and seven hundred only) with proportionate costs and 6 per cent per annum interest on this amount from the date of decree till realization as compensation for the head injury and disability sustained at the hands of Defendant -Appellants around 8.30 p.m. on 7.7.1974 in village Pathrala, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. It needs to be mentioned that in the civil suit aforesaid, the Plaintiff -Respondent had claimed Rs. 1,12,910/ - (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand nine hundred and ten only) as compensation on this score and the claim against Budh Singh Defendant -Appellant was sustained merely on the basis of common intention and not as actual assailants causing the head injury resulting in disability of Plaintiff -Respondent. Against the judgment and decree aforesaid, the Defendant -Appellants have filed Regular First Appeal No. 691 of 1978 on 18.7.1978 while the Plaintiff -Respondent has put in Cross -objections registered at No. 59/C -1 on 1.9.1978. Both the Regular First Appeal and Cross -objections have been heard and are being disposed of together.

(2.) THE only lacuna pointed out in the judgment of the trial court by Defendant -Appellants is that it was Ghukar Singh alone who had caused the head injury with a gandasa, weilded from the front side on the person of Plaintiff -Respondent Bhagwan Singh which had caused the disability in respect of which damages have been claimed. Budh Singh Defendant -Appellant was held liable by the criminal court not as actual assailant but on the basis of common intention in terms of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vicarious liability, it has been asserted, cannot be made use of on the civil side, to make Budh Singh Defendant -Appellant liable for the payment of compensation. The argument has not been controverted. It is fully borne out from the facts on record as also the observations made by the learned trial court that it was Ghukar Singh alone who had struck from its sharp edge side on the head of Plaintiff -Respondent Bhagwan Singh with his gandasa. Learned trial court thus obviously erred in making Defendant No. 1, Budh Singh, liable for the payment of compensation in respect of injury caused to Plaintiff -Respondent Bhagwan Singh by Ghukar Singh, Defendant No. 3, alone. Its assailed judgment and decree passed against Defendant No. 1 Budh Singh is consequently set aside and reversed. Defendant No. 3 Ghukar Singh alone would be liable thereunder for payment of compensation of Rs. 64,700/ - (Rupees sixty -four thousand and seven hundred only) with proportionate costs and 6 per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of decree, viz., 13.6.1978, till realization of the compensation amount.

(3.) IN result, the cross -objections are wholly without merit and are consequently dismissed. Appeal partially succeeds in regard to the enforcement of liability against Budh Singh Defendant No. 1 and is, therefore, allowed to this extent, as ordered already. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs of the proceedings taken by them both against each other in this Court.