Abdul Rehman Mir And Others vs Qaffia Begum

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J

This Appeal is directed against judgement and decree dated 19th July 2018, passed by Principal District Judge, Bandipora (for brevity “Trial Court”) in a Suit titled Qaffia Begum v. Abdul Rehman Mir and others.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

A civil suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest. The plaintiff after inquiry was declared as indigent. Appellants herein – defendants before the Trial Court, filed their written statement, but thereafter they did not choose to appear in the matter, which resulted in initiation of ex parte proceedings. Plaintiff produced and examined five witnesses, namely, Abdullah Khan, Nazir Ahmad Lone, Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone, Habibullah Lone, Ghulam Rubani Khan, besides herself. It was on the edifice of case set up, statement of plaintiff and witnesses produced by her in support of her case that she established that her son, namely, Altaf Khan, had died when he was engaged by defendant as labourer. It was also found and established that after death of deceased, parties had entered into the compromise and in compliance thereof, defendants/ appellants had agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/-, but appellants paid only Rs.2,00,000/- to plaintiff/respondent. Thus, the Trial Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case, decreed the suit of plaintiff/ respondent in ex parte.

It would be appropriate to go through the Trial Court record. Plaintiff/ respondent in her suit at paragraph 2 has stated that her son was hired as labourer by defendants 1 to 3 for laying cable network at Jammu through and under the supervision of defendant no.4 and he died under the employment of defendants. Upon institution of civil suit and issuance of notice upon defendants/appellants, they put in attendance before the Trial Court and filed their written statement. They maintained and claimed before the Trial Court that deceased-son of respondent/plaintiff died accidentally, i.e., while bathing in a canal and not under the supervision of defendants/ appellants, and that defendants out of their will and on humanitarian grounds gave compensation to the plaintiff. It is also claimed by defendants/appellants in their written statement that no amount remained unpaid by defendants towards the plaintiff and no agreement alleged by plaintiff existed between the parties.

Learned counsel for appellants has stated that appellant no.4 was engaged by appellants 1 to 3 to look-after execution of work at Akhnoor in the year 2012, who had engaged deceased-Altaf Ahmad Khan as labourer on consolidated wages and the said labourer died due to drowning by his own negligence without any sort of work to be done at that particular point of time and the death was not the result of any work to be executed on behalf of appellants. And it was purely on humanitarian grounds that appellants agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,94,250/- to dependents of deceased labourer and so was paid by them. It is also contended that learned Trial Court without considering the matter in its true and correct perspective and without seeking any documentary proof qua the claim made by respondent, has passed impugned judgement and decree against appellants. According to learned counsel, impugned judgement and decree is mainly based on false statements of the witnesses produced by respondent and the said statements have not been substantiated by any record.

The submissions made by learned counsel for appellants when analysed in the background of the Trial Court record as also impugned judgement, pale into insignificance. The Trial Court recorded statement of five witnesses. The veracity of statements of those witnesses cannot be questioned or disputed as has been so tried by learned counsel for appellants as the statements made by witnesses corroborate the case set up by plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the Trial Court has considered oral evidence and recorded findings after seeing the demeanour of witnesses and having applied its mind, thus, this Court has kept that fact in mind. In that view of matter, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons discussed above, the instant Appeal is dismissed with connected CM(s) and as a corollary thereof, the Trial Court judgement and decree dated 19th July 2018, passed by Principal District Judge, Bandipora in a Suit titled Qaffia Begum v. Abdul Rehman Mir and others, is upheld. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Registry to prepare a decree sheet, accordingly.

Copy be sent down along with the Trial Court record.