Paramjit Kaur vs Sarwan Singh and Others

N.C. Jain, J.—Plaintiffs Paramjit Kaur, widow of Jasbir Singh and her four daughters filed the present suit for the recovery of Rupees 65,000/- on account of damages against the defendants Sarwan Singh etc. on the ground that Jasbir Singh was murdered by them on 27th April, 1973. It was averred that the deceased had good health and that the male members in the family died at the age of 80/90 years. It was the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that Jasbir Singh was cultivating land measuring 25 Killas belonging to his father and his brother who resided in U.S.A. The father of deceased was an old man and his brother being away to U.S.A., it was the deceased who used to cultivate the land. The total income of the deceased was Rupees 500/- per month. While giving the details as to how the murder was committed by the defendants, it has been stated in the plaint that Jasbir Singh deceased was cultivating 3-1/2 Killas of land of Mulla Singh of village Mohanpur, Tehsil Tarn Taran as tenant and the said land was purchased by the defendants who asked the deceased not to remove the wheat crop compelling him to obtain ad-interim injunction against the defendants. On 27th April, 1973 at about 6.45 P.M. the defendants are alleged to have attacked the deceased resulting into his death. Detailed eye version account was also given in the plaint. The defendants contested the suit and denied the commission of murder. It was stated by them that Jasbir Singh deceased had enmity in the village an that some persons had murdered him. It was further denied that the plaintiffs were the heirs of the deceased Jasbir Singh and that they were not entitled to any compensation. The plea of limitation was also raised. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court.

Whether plaintiffs have a locus standi to file the suit? OPP.

Whether defendants committed the murder of Jasbir Singh? OPP.

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled .to get the compensation and damages, if so to what extent? OPP.

Whether suit is not within time? OPD.

Relief.

Under Issue No. 1 it has been found by the trial Court that the plaintiffs were the legal heirs and, therefore, had locus standi to file the suit. Under Issue No. 2 the defendants were found to have committed the murder of Jasbir Singh. The suit was found to be within limitation under Issue No. 4. The Trial Court found issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a decree in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- against the defendants by way of damages.

The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the defendants in Regular First Appeal No. 104 and 1979 praying for dismissal of the suit whereas the plaintiffs have claimed enhancement in the compensation by filing Regular First Appeal No. 560 of 1979. This judgment of mine would dispose of both the appeals.

The finding under issue No. 1 to the effect that the plaintiffs are widow and daughters of the deceased Jasbir Singh is borne out from the evidence on the record. PW-2 Ranjit Singh father of the deceased Jasbir Singh stepped into the witness-box and stated that Jasbir Singh was his son and was married with Paramjit Kaur plaintiff No. 1 and four daughters were born out of the wedlock. Statement of PW-3 Paramjit Kaur is also clear on this point. Mutation of land Exhibit P-3 pertaining to succession of Jasbir Singh to the entire estate in favour of the plaintiffs has also been relied upon by the trial Court. Exhibits P-4 and P-5 are the birth certificates of two daughters born at Tarn Taran. It has been admitted by Achhar Singh DW-2 that Jasbir Singh was married with Paramjit Kaur plaintiff No. 1. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the trial Court under issue No. 1 deserves to be affirmed.

The commission of murder by the defendants is also proved. Ranjit Singh PW-2 father of the deceased Jasbir Singh stated that about four years back at about 7.00 p.m. Jasbir Singh was checking the bundles of wheat when Joga Singh armed with dang and pistol, Sarwan Singh with gandali, Sawarn Singh with takua came there and attacked Jasbir Singh. Achhar Singh was described to be empty handed. Sarwan Singh was alleged to have given a gandali blow on the face of Jasbir Singh upon which he fell down. Joga Singh fired in the air; Sarwan Singh gave a takua blow on the head of Jasbir Singh while Joga Singh landed a dang blow on the back of Jasbir Singh. Achhar Singh raised a lalkara. Dr. P.S. Virk PW1 performed the postmortem of the body of Jasbir Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-

A contused wound 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm bone deep present of the chin.

Incised wound 4x1/2 cm bone deep present on the right side of the head.

A contusion 4x2 cm present on left side of head.

A reddish contusion 6x2 cm present on the back right ear.

A contusion 12x3 cm with an abrasion 10x1 cm present on the back of right shoulder.

A contusion 10x2 cm with an abrasion 3x1 cm present just below injury No. 5.

A contusion 7x1/2 cm present on left side of back in its middle one third.

A contusion in an area of 10x6 cm present on the upper one third of back right side.

After reading the statement of the doctor and the eye-witness, the trial Court has come to the right conclusion that all the accused had a common intention of causing injuries, out of which injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 7 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The accused were convicted vide judgment of the Sessions Courts Exhibit P/6. The conviction was upheld by this Court vide judgment Exhibit P/2. In my considered view, the trial Court has rightly believed the evidence brought on the record of the case. The finding of commission of the crime by the defendants is proved independently in the civil suit.

The suit was filed on 25.1.1975, i.e. well within two years from the date of commission of the crime and, therefore, the same is within time in accordance with Article 82 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of two years for filing a suit for claiming compensation on account of the death of a person, who has been murdered. This leads me to decide as to what should be the amount of compensation.

On the question of quantum of compensation, the trial court has committed an error in awarding Rs. 30,000/- only. It has been held by the trial Court after discussing about longevity of life of grandfather etc. of the deceased Jasbir Singh that he was likely to remain alive upto the age of 70 years and, therefore, his life has been shortened by 27 years. His income has been adjudged by the trial Court as Rs. 500/-per month. The trial Court was of the view that the deceased would have earned Rs. 1,62,000/- but the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 65,000/- only as damages. It has further been found that the plaintiffs inherited six killas of the land and the value of the land being Rs. 35,000/- the aforesaid amount must be deducted from a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. In this manner, the finding has been arrived at that the plaintiffs were entitled to the grant of damages to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- only. In my considered view, this finding is erroneous. Once loss to the family has been assessed at Rs. 1,62,000/-by the Trial Court, according to its own finding, the trial Court could deduct Rs. 35,000/- from Rs. 1,62,000/- and in this manner the amount of damages should have been calculated at Rs. 1,27,000/-. In any case once the trial Court had found that the deceased was earning at least Rs. 6,000/- per annum, there was no difficulty in awarding damages to the tune of Rs. 65,000/-. Looked from any angle, in my considered view the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of damages to the tune of Rs. 65,000/-. They are also entitled to grant of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the defendants is dismissed being devoid of any merit, whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs succeeds and they are held entitled to the grant of a decree for damages for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- plus interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation, recoverable from the defendants jointly or severally. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.