NAWAB DEEN Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, in this suit, has claimed a decree for Rs. 10,50,000/ - with future interest @ 12% per annum against the defendants on account of bodily injuries caused to him by them, consequential loss of earnings during the period of treatment, medical expenses, future loss of income and his personal dependency.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff, aged about 29 years at the time of the institution of the suit, was earlier a bodily fit person. However, on 3 -10 -1991, at village Bhabia, the defendants pelted stones on him thereby causing grievous injuries. As a result, the plaintiff suffered great pain, remained under treatment till the date of the institution of the suit and even thereafter and incurred permanent physical disability to the extent of 75% despite having spent huge amount on his medical treatment. It is claimed that because of the injuries, he has been rendered unable to properly walk and talk and his eye sight has been damaged. It has also been averred in the plaint that the incident of pelting stones on him by the defendants was reported to the police and a charge -sheet was submitted against the defendants which came to be registered as Case No. 42/2 of 1992 in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal. Against this background, the plaintiff has claimed the damages as follows : (i) on account of bodily injuries Rs. 3,00,000/ - (ii) on account of loss of earnings from 3 -10 -91to 31 -7 -1994. Rs. 1,50,000/ - (iii) on account of medical expenses including transportation charges Rs. 1,00,000/ - (iv) on account of future loss of income and personal dependency. Rs. 5,00,000/ -

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the defendants caused bodily injuries to the plaintiff? OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the extent of disability as suffered by the plaintiff due to the injuries as caused to him by the defendants? OPP. (3) To what amount of compensation the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP. (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable? (5) Whether the suit is time -barred? OPD. (6) Whether the defendants are not liable to pay any amount of compensation? OPD. 7. Relief. 8. Parties led evidence. 9. Arguments were heard. 10. My issuewise findings are as follows: ISSUE NO. 1 : 8. There is no serious dispute about the sustaining of the injuries by the plaintiff at the relevant time. Even DW -3 Sant Ram on the asking of the father of the plaintiff had visited the spot and found the plaintiff lying there in injured condition. It is evident from the statement of PW -1 that on medical examination of the plaintiff on 3 -10 -1991 at 10 a.m. following injuries of the duration of 3 to 8 hours were found on the persons of the plaintiff. 1. Patient semi -conscious not responding to verbal command irritable; 2. Pulse 68 per minute regular, occasionally irregular. 3. B. P. 100/ - 60 mm Mercury. 4. Bleeding from nose and mouth positive, no bleeding from ears.