RUP LAL Vs. BALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant against the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 80,000/- as damages was decreed. The instant appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts can be stated thus. On 18.7.1986 at 6.30 PM the plaintiff/respondent was going to defecate near Barmana down below the National Highway. The defendant/appellant met him on the way and asked him as to where he was going. The plaintiff/ respondent told him that he was going to ease himself down the road. On this, the defendant/appellant gave a "Drat" blow on his right leg causing fracture. The plaintiff/respondent was taken to the hospital at Bilaspur where he was medically checked up. He had to remain hospitalized for about two months. His leg was plastered. He incurred expenses on medial treatment and had also to suffer the loss in his Dhabha-business and he was unable to do any manual work. A criminal case was also registered against the defendant/appellant for the aforesaid offence in which he was convicted and sentenced on 6.4.1987. In appeal the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court vide judgment Ext.D.1 dated 3.8.1989 acquitted him. The plaintiff/respondent submitted that he suffered the earning to the tune of Rs. 1500/- to 2000/- per month. There was a shortening of the leg by 1= inches. He was unmarried youngman of 25 years. Thus he claimed the damages to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- for voluntarily and intentionally causing hurt to him under the above heads.

(3.) The plaintiff/respondent had initially filed the suit as forma pauperis, but the permission was not granted to him by the learned trial Court to sue as an indigent person, as the application was not accompanied by the schedule which was a statutory requirement. Even in appeal he did not succeed but was directed to file the appeal in the High Court on or before 1.6.1990, but he did not do so and affixed the requisite court-fees on 23.4.1991 on the extended period granted by the learned trial Court.