Ghukar Singh and Another vs Bhagwan Singh and Others

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Vide its assailed judgment and decree dated 13.6.1978 in Civil Suit No. 6 filed on 13.1.1976 learned trial court granted to the Plaintiff-Respondent Bhagwan Singh a decree for recovery of Rs. 64,700/ - (Rupees sixty-four thousand and seven hundred only) with proportionate costs and 6 per cent per annum interest on this amount from the date of decree till realization as compensation for the head injury and disability sustained at the hands of Defendant-Appellants around 8.30 p.m. on 7.7.1974 in village Pathrala, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. It needs to be mentioned that in the civil suit aforesaid, the Plaintiff-Respondent had claimed Rs. 1,12,910/ - (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand nine hundred and ten only) as compensation on this score and the claim against Budh Singh Defendant-Appellant was sustained merely on the basis of common intention and not as actual assailants causing the head injury resulting in disability of Plaintiff-Respondent. Against the judgment and decree aforesaid, the Defendant-Appellants have filed Regular First Appeal No. 691 of 1978 on 18.7.1978 while the Plaintiff-Respondent has put in Cross-objections registered at No. 59/C-1 on 1.9.1978. Both the Regular First Appeal and Cross-objections have been heard and are being disposed of together.

The only lacuna pointed out in the judgment of the trial court by Defendant-Appellants is that it was Ghukar Singh alone who had caused the head injury with a gandasa, weilded from the front side on the person of Plaintiff-Respondent Bhagwan Singh which had caused the disability in respect of which damages have been claimed. Budh Singh Defendant-Appellant was held liable by the criminal court not as actual assailant but on the basis of common intention in terms of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vicarious liability, it has been asserted, cannot be made use of on the civil side, to make Budh Singh Defendant-Appellant liable for the payment of compensation. The argument has not been controverted. It is fully borne out from the facts on record as also the observations made by the learned trial court that it was Ghukar Singh alone who had struck from its sharp edge side on the head of Plaintiff-Respondent Bhagwan Singh with his gandasa. Learned trial court thus obviously erred in making Defendant No. 1, Budh Singh, liable for the payment of compensation in respect of injury caused to Plaintiff-Respondent Bhagwan Singh by Ghukar Singh, Defendant No. 3, alone. Its assailed judgment and decree passed against Defendant No. 1 Budh Singh is consequently set aside and reversed. Defendant No. 3 Ghukar Singh alone would be liable thereunder for payment of compensation of Rs. 64,700/ - (Rupees sixty-four thousand and seven hundred only) with proportionate costs and 6 per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of decree, viz., 13.6.1978, till realization of the compensation amount.

Secondly, in cross-objections it has been urged that deduction at the rate of Rs. 40/ - (Rupees forty only) per month from the earning capacity of Plaintiff-Respondent on account of his left-over capacity to do supervisory work on agricultural fields is unwarranted and not legally permissible and, therefore, the compensation amount should be increased by another Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand only) on this score. There is no tangible basis for this contention. Plaintiff-Respondent Bhagwan Singh himself stepped into witness-box and asserted as PW10 before the learned trial court that before sustaining the head injury at the hands of Defendant No. 3 Ghukar Singh, he was earning between Rs. 6,000/ - (Rupees six thousand only) and Rs. 7,000/ - (Rupees seven thousand only) per annum and that thereafter this income from the same source had come down to between Rs. 3,000/ - (Rupees three thousand only) and Rs. 4,000/ - (Rupees four thousand only). There was thus a loss of Rs. 3,000/ - (Rupees three thousand only) per annum or Rs. 8/ - (Rupees eight only) per day. Calculated at this rate, the loss serving as measure of damages for the remaining 30 years'' span of life of Plaintiff-Respondent would calculate at Rs. 72,000/ - (Rupees seventy-two thousand only) out of which the learned trial court rightly deducted one-eighth of this amount as interest accretion on lump sum payment and awarded Rs. 63,000/ - (Rupees sixty-three thousand only). Another sum of Rs. 1,700/ - (Rupees one thousand seven hundred only) was added to it as actual cost of treatment and in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 64,700/ - (Rupees sixty-four thousand seven hundred only) was rightly awarded. There is no scope to add any further amount to the compensation already awarded by the learned trial court on this score.

In result, the cross-objections are wholly without merit and are consequently dismissed. Appeal partially succeeds in regard to the enforcement of liability against Budh Singh Defendant No. 1 and is, therefore, allowed to this extent, as ordered already. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs of the proceedings taken by them both against each other in this Court.