In this regular second appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's petition challenging the reduction of mental agony compensation from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 5,000 by the first appellate court, holding the reduction reasonable under the facts.
The second appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 250/2002 OF DISTRICT COURT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 49/1998 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
UDAYAPRAKASH @ CHANTHU S/O. SASIDHARAN, PRAKASH MANDIRAM, MULAKUZHI, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VENJARAMOOD P.O., NELLANADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 MANJUSHA, D/O PRASANNA, VENJARAMOODU P.O., NELLANADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 PRASANNA, W/O. BABU PARUTHIKUNNU VEEDU, VALIYAKATTAKKAL VEEDU, VENJARAMOODU P.O., NELLANADU VILLAGE,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.BIJU FOR R1 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 22.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
2
K.BABU, J.
R.S.A. No.461 of 2006
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in A.S.No.250/2002, which arose from the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judges Court, Nedumangad in O.S.No.49/1998. The plaintiff in the trial Court is the appellant and defendants 1 and 2 are the respondents.
2.1. The plaintiff and the defendants belong in Ezhava community. On 29.01.1998, the plaintiff, the defendants and their relatives assembled in the defendants' residence and agreed to conduct plaintiff's marriage with defendant No.1 as per religious rites and customs prevailing in their community. They decided to conduct the marriage on 17.08.1998. The betrothal ceremony was held on 29.01.1998. Thereafter the defendants withdrew from the agreement raising the allegation that the plaintiff had illicit
3
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
relations with another lady. The plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss as well as mental agony due to the conduct of the defendants.
admitted that they agreed to solemnize the marriage. They were made to believe that the plaintiff was aged only 25 years and that he was highly educated. After the betrothal ceremony, it was revealed that the plaintiff had not possessed the qualification as claimed and he was 12 years elder than defendant No.1. The plaintiff had an illicit connection with another lady and he was leading a loose life. Defendant No.1 never consented to the marriage between the plaintiff and herself. The plaintiff has not sustained any damages as claimed.
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
4
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
5
awarded by the trial Court and granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pecuniary damages, taking into account the expenses incurred by the plaintiff, and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony to the plaintiff.
i) Did not the lower appellate court act contrary to law in reducing the compensation for mental agony?
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
6
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
7
defendants, the plaintiff had a connection with another lady and was leading a loose life.
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
8
defendant No.1 was also leading a happy life with her husband and children. The First Appellate Court, taking into account all these facts, found that a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony is reasonable.
20. The rule of restitutio in integrum is that assessment of damages is to be made based on what the injured has lost on account of a wrongful act of the wrongdoer. There are imperfections and uncertainties in the assessment of non-pecuniary damages. After the decision in British Transport Commission v. Gourley [(1956) A.C. 185 at 197], a new rule was introduced, by which instead of trying to compensate the injured, as nearly as possible it was suggested to relieve the wrongdoer of a part of the burden of his liability.
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
9
injury does not admit of definite pecuniary measurement. It is trite that, damages are usually considered to be remedial rather than preventive.
C.Kameshwara Rao's Law of Damages and Compensation, 7th edition, the learned author writes thus:
“This leads us to a consideration of the basis upon which the assessment of damages has to be made. Is it done on the basis of what the plaintiff has lost on account of the defendant's wrongful act, or of what the defendant is bound to pay or reimburse the plaintiff. This rule universally adopted and applied is restitutio in integrum. This is generally interpreted as meaning that the party injured by a breach of contract or tort is to be put in the same position, so far as money can do, as he would have been in if the wrong had not been committed. That is to say, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of a sum equivalent to what he would have got but for the commission of the wrong; and equally that represents his loss, and normally, it is what the defendant has to pay. It is true that such an award can hardly ever be a perfect compensation to the injured plaintiff, but this is due more to the imperfections of human Tribunals that to a lack of willingness on their part. But by a strange turn of fortune the rule in Gourley's case introduced an element which adds to the already existing imperfections and uncertainties. Instead of trying to compensate the injured party as nearly as possible, the rule in Gourley's case tries to relieve the wrongdoer of a part of the burden of his liability. It says in effect. 'You need to pay all that the plaintiff says he has lost by your wrongful act. You are only to pay what remains to him after defraying certain legal expenditure the incidence of which is uncertain.'”
25 pages 628 to 629, writes thus:
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
10
“While damages, to be recoverable, must be compensatory, in the absence of statutory authorization of a different measures of damages, it is perhaps more accurate to speak of reparation than of compensation, where the injury is such that it does not admit of definite pecuniary measurement.
Damages are usually considered to be remedial rather than preventive, and are generally intended to compensate rather than to punish or impose a penalty, although in certain cases damages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but as a punishment to the wrongdoer.
The right of the injured party to compensation must be considered in connection with the right of the wrongdoer to pay only that which he should justly be compelled to pay, but the wrongdoer is not in a favored position to urge the technical rules governing awards of damages.”
[ (1994) 4 SCC 1] while dealing with the principle of tortious liability, the Apex Court held thus:
“Truly speaking entire law of torts is founded and structured on morality that no one has a right to injure or harm others intentionally or even innocently. Therefore, it would be primitive to class strictly or close finally the ever-expanding and growing horizon of tortious liability. Even for social development, orderly growth of the society and cultural refineness, the liberal approach to tortious liability by courts is more conducive.”
(emphasis supplied)
interfere with the said finding.
RSA NO. 461 OF 2006
11
The substantial question of law is answered accordingly against the appellant. The second appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/K.BABU JUDGE
VPK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court acted contrary to law in reducing the compensation for mental agony?
Whether the application of the principle of restitutio in integrum was illegal in assessing compensation for breach of marriage contract?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
British Transport Commission v. GourleyReferred¶20
British Transport Commission v. Gourley [(1956) A.C. 185 at 197]
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of GujaratReferred¶24
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [ (1994) 4 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Udayaprasath @ Chanthu S/o. Sasidharan
Manjusa D/o. Prasanna
Prasanna W/o. Babu Paruthikunniveedu
K. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
