NARESH KUMAR ALIAS SONU Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged the judgment and decree, dated 15.03.2008, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 170-D/XIII/2006, vide which, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present appellant, upheld the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 80 of 2002, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the present respondent partially by passing a decree for recovery of Rs.1,55,400.00 with costs alongwith future interest @4% per annum from the date of decree.

(2.) Brief Facts Necessary For The Adjudication Of The Case are that respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 against the present appellant on the ground that the plaintiff was an unemployed youth 25 years of age and used to help his father in grazing sheep and goats. As per the plaintiff, on 24.04.1998, plaintiff alongwith his father and brother were proceeding alongwith their cattle towards Bharmaur, District Chamba. When they reached at Village Jhir Balla, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, they had their meals there and also took some rest. During this period, defendant, who was a shop keeper at Village Jhir Balla, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, came out from his shop and started abusing the plaintiff and asked him to remove his lamb from a Tiala. Defendant also started abusing the father and brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested the defendant that he would remove the lamb from the Tiala and that defendant should not abuse his father and brother. On this, defendant got enraged and went back to his shop and came out with a drat and attacked the plaintiff with the same on his left forearm. Brother of the plaintiff tried to save him, but he (brother) also was attacked by the defendant. On account of the blows so given by the defendant, plaintiff sustained grievous injury on his person and blood started oozing out from his arm. The matter was reported to the Police at Police Station, Shahpur, whereafter FIR No. 63/98 was recorded. As the plaintiff was bleeding profusely, he was taken to Shahpur Hospital, where he was examined. The nature of injuries suffered by him were found to be serious and it was also found that the plaintiff had suffered a fracture. He was referred to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on the same day. He remained admitted at Zonal Hospital, Dharmshala from 24.04.1998 to 11.05.1998, i.e., for a period of 18 days. Accused was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (1), Dharamshala vide judgment, dated 03.08.2001. According to the plaintiff, during the period when he remained under treatment, he incurred expenditure of Rs.50,000.00 towards his treatment and medicines. Further as per him, he had to take medicines even after his discharge. It was further the case of the plaintiff that he had passed higher secondary examination, was good at sports and had played sports at Zonal level, but on account of injuries suffered by him, his entire career had been spoiled as he had suffered 15% permanent disability and in fact he was crippled. On these basis, plaintiff prayed that a decree for Rs.2,00,000.00, i.e., Rs.1,50,000.00 on account of having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% on his person and Rs.50,000.00 on account of necessary expenses, which the plaintiff had incurred on account of injuries, be passed in his favour and against the defendant.

(3.) The Suit Was Contested By The Defendant, Who Denied the academic qualification of the plaintiff or the factum of his having any agricultural land etc. Defendant denied inflicting any injury upon the person of the plaintiff with drat. He in fact denied the contents of FIR No. 63/98 and also denied the factum of his being convicted, as alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant denied the factum of plaintiff having incurred an amount of Rs.50,000.00 as expenses for treatment and medicines etc. He also denied the claim of the plaintiff of being good at sports or having suffered disability etc.