Allowed

George Varghese v. Suresh

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024RSA/144/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by plaintiff in a damages suit for assault causing head injury. The court upheld exoneration of the first defendant for want of evidence and enhanced compensation from defendants 2 and 3 to Rs.17,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,000 with 6% interest from date of suit and costs throughout against defendants 2 and 3 and their assets.

George Varghese Vs Suresh — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13^TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

RSA NO. 144 OF 2013

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2012 IN AS NO.320 OF 2008 ON THE FILE

¶7

OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM)

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2008 IN OS NO.109 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM

¶10

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

GEORGE VARGHESE AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE,THEKKEBHAGATHU VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA,KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶15

1 SURESH,AGED 51 YEARS

¶16

S/O.KRISHNAN,HARSHALAYATHIL,CHIRATTAKKONAM,THALACHIRA CHERRI,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA P.O. -691546

¶17

2 RAJESH, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SOMARAJAN,SOMARAJ NIVAS,PUNNUKKANNOOR CHERRI,KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA P.O-691321.

¶18

3 SUDHARSANAN,AGED 41 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN,DARSANA,CHITTUR WARD,PANMANA CHERRI,PANMANA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK,KOLLAM-691587. BY ADVS.

¶19

SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.N.VIMALAN SRI.S.ABHILASH

¶20

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.05.2024,

¶21

THIS COURT ON 03.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2024

¶26

This is a second appeal filed by the appellant in A.S.No.320/2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge-II, Kollam, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.109/2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam, against the judgment dated 18.09.2012 partly allowing the appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.

¶27

The plaintiff filed the suit for damages. The plaintiff is a lawyer by profession, who held several positions in a political party. He was the District Secretary of Kerala Congress (Jacob), a political party. The defendants 2 and 3 are the close associates of the 1^st defendant. According to the plaintiff, on 15.03.2003, at about 3 pm., the defendants 2 and 3, at the instigation of the 1^st defendant due to his political rivalry, attacked him with a stick causing injury on his scalp. Immediately, he was taken to the District Hospital, Kollam and

¶28

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶29

¶30

he was admitted there as inpatient till 21.02.2003. He had a

¶31

head injury of 6cm x 2cm, which was treated with 11 stitches. The plaintiff reported the matter to the party and in the enquiry conducted by them, it was found that the defendants 2 and 3 attacked the plaintiff at the instigation of the 1^st defendant. Accordingly, the 1^st defendant was suspended from the party. A crime was registered by the Kollam West Police in that respect and after investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam as C.C.No.769/2003, against the defendants 2 and 3 alone. The 1^st defendant was omitted from the case due to his influence in Police. The plaintiff suffered pain and suffering and spent huge amount for treatment. He could not attended his office due to the above incident from 16.03.2003 to 14.04.2003. The incident lowered

¶32

his reputation and hence, he prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,00,500/- (Rupees one lakh five hundred only).

¶33

Before the trial court, the defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte. The 1^st defendant opposed the claim on the ground that he had no role in the incident in which the plaintiff

¶34

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶35

¶36

sustained injuries. On the basis of the available evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. In the appeal, the 1^st appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to the plaintiff from defendants 2 and 3. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the plaintiff preferred the second appeal.

¶37

At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court.

¶38

(i) Having found that the plaintiff had sustained injury on his head and was hospitalised from 15.3.2003 to 21.3.2003, did the lower appellate court go wrong in not awarding proper damages/compensation?

¶39

(ii) Did not the lower appellate court go wrong in not awarding compensation/damages for his inability to carry on his activities as an Advocate due to the injuries and its after effects caused on him ?

¶40

(iii) Did not the courts below go wrong in exonerating the first defendant from the liability ?

¶41

At the time of arguments the respondents did not turn

¶42

up. The plaintiff was heard in detail on the above substantial

¶43

questions of law.

¶44

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶45

¶46

One of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel

¶47

for the plaintiff is that the trial court ought to have granted compensation as against the 1^st defendant also. The trial court as well as the 1^st appellate court found that there is absolutely no evidence in this case to connect the 1^st defendant with the alleged incident. In the First Information Statement, the plaintiff has not raised any allegation against the 1^st defendant. Subsequently, for the first time in the suit notice dated 17.02.2004, he had raised a contention that the 1^st defendant entered into a conspiracy with the other defendants to attack him.

¶48

None of the witnesses examined in this case on the side of the plaintiff also, could not substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant had any role in the incident, in which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court as well as of the 1^st appellate court that the plaintiff could not prove that the 1^st defendant has any role in the incident in which

¶49

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶50

¶51

he sustained injuries. In the above circumstance, the suit

¶52

dismissed as against the 1^st defendant is liable to be sustained.

¶53

The next point arose for consideration is the quantum of compensation awarded by the 1^st appellate court. The plaintiff produced certified copy of the First Information Statement, wound certificate, discharge card and certain medical bills to prove his claim that he sustained injuries in the incident and also that he had to spent amounts for the treatment. The bills produced by the plaintiff and marked and Ext.P7 series, is only for Rs.1,244/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred forty four only). However, the plaintiff had claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand only) towards medical treatment. The

¶54

1^st appellate court awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in that respect. Since the total bill amount produced is only Rs.1244/-, Rs.2000/- awarded towards medical expense is reasonable.

¶55

The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) towards compensation for pain, loss and mental agony sustained by him. He had claimed another

¶56

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶57

¶58

sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards loss of earning, as he could not attend his office and practice as an Advocate during the period from 16.03.2003 to 14.04.2003. The court found that the plaintiff could not attend his office for a period of seven days, during which he was hospitalized, and for the loss of income for the above seven days, only a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) was awarded as compensation.

¶59

Towards pain and suffering, the 1^st appellate court has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). As per the wound certificate produced, the plaintiff sustained injury on his scalp having a size of 6cm x 2cm, requiring 11 stitches. Moreover, he had to be hospitalized for a period of seven days in that respect. In the above circumstances, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) awarded towards pain and suffering is too meager. Considering the facts, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards pain and suffering.

¶60

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶61

¶62

The 1^st appellate court granted a meager sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards his loss of income on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to prove his income. The fact that the plaintiff was a practicing lawyer is not disputed. Considering the fact that the plaintiff is a practicing lawyer and due to the above incidents, he could not attend his office for a period of seven days, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) claimed in that respect is quite reasonable. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff can be awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-

¶63

(Rupees five thousand only) towards loss of income for the seven days he was in hospital.

¶64

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get a total sum of Rs.17,000/(Rs.10,000+Rs.5,000/-+Rs.2,000/-) towards compensation from the defendants 2 and 3. For the said amount, the plaintiff is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the suit till realization, with cost throughout from defendants 2 and 3 and their assets. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

¶65

RSA No.144 of 2013

¶66

¶67

In the result, this appeal is allowed as follows;

¶68

(i) The compensation awarded to the plaintiff is enhanced to Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only). (ii) The plaintiff is allowed to realize a sum of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the suit till realization with costs throughout, from defendants 2 and 3 and their assets.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

George Varghese v. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Varghese v. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

John,(Died) Legal Representative Impleaded Vs Mathai and Others

V.M. Prabhakaran Vs Padmavathi Amma

A.Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder,(Died) Lrs Impleaded Vs N.a.Anidas and Another

Mary Johnson Vs Annamma Varghese

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd Vs Sujir Ganesh Nayak

Sheik Musthafa Vs Thanka