AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The appellants, who were contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 before the learned trial court, have suffered concurrent findings of fact in a suit for ''damages for injuries caused by negligence'' filed by the contesting respondent No. 1 herein, being the plaintiff, in which respondent No. 2 herein was joined as a proforma defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff for damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- was decreed alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum, which on appeal was reduced to Rs. 75,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. Shorn of details, factual matrix is that on 18.03.2006 at about 4:15 p.m. when the plaintiff, while on way back home, was passing through Bhuntar bazaar, a quarrel was going on between contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 and proforma defendant No. 3. In this process when proforma defendant No. 3 tried to ward off the danda blow, the same instead of falling upon him landed on the eye of the plaintiff, who fell unconscious on the road. She was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kullu, where she remained admitted up to 23.03.2006 and was then referred to IGMC, Shimla, and ultimately to PGI, Chandigarh on 29.03.2006 where she was operated upon and thereafter discharged on 05.04.2006.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties and gone through the record.
The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
Whether the courts below have misread, mis-appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence on record and as such the findings are perverse?
Whether the Courts below while granting damages have failed to appreciate that the plaintiff have failed to prove that there was any negligence on the part of appellants, as such also the findings granting damages are bad?
A perusal of the evidence, oral and documentary, on record would go to show that the same has been appreciated and evaluated by the learned courts below in its right perspective and the findings based on the same cannot be faulted on any count.
Insofar as negligence on the part of the plaintiffs is concerned, the same is writ large on the face of record. They were quarrelling with contesting defendant No. 3 in a busy bazaar at the peak evening hour. It was incumbent upon them to have visualized that any such wanton quarrel, in which dandas were being used freely, could be detrimental to passersby in the crowd, other than the intended target, that is, proforma defendant No. 3. Thus, it can also not be said that the findings of the learned courts below, granting damages to the plaintiff, are bad.
On appraisal of the evidence and on an overall view of the matter, I am satisfied that no question of law, what to say of a substantial question of law, is involved in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The appeal, so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.