N.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing his claim for payment of the amount claimed as reward.
(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. The plaintiff is a resident of Malpe of Kodavoor Village, Udupi Taluk. He is an employee working in the N.C.C. of Karnataka Naval Unit and he is also a fisherman by birth. His case is that, on the midnight of 18 -7 -1988, at about 1.00 a.m., he was catching fish by the side of Padukere river near the seashore facing north along with one M.K. Diwakar, his friend. At that time, one big vessel accompanied by a fishing boat dashed against the seashore behind the back of the plaintiff at a distance of about 30 feet on the southern side creating a big sound. The vessel was stranded. The persons in the vessel got down and fired gun shots in the air. The light of the vessel was put off. The persons in the vessel, who were about 10 to 12 in number, got down from the vessel. They first removed all the goods they brought in the fishing boat and thereafter partly removed the smuggled goods brought in the vessel for about an hour. This work was carried out in dark. Thereafter, they burnt the fishing boat brought by them and fled away.
(3.) THE plaintiff and his friend waited till 4.00 a.m. as there was no boat available to them to cross Padukere river and reach Malpe. At 5.00 a.m., they reached the Customs Office at Malpe. There was no light in the Customs Office and nobody was there and it was under lock and key. Then, the plaintiff's friend Diwakar left for his home. Thereafter, the plaintiff proceeded towards the residence of Vasudeva, a sepoy of customs office at Malpe. He reached there at 5.40 a.m. and informed the sepoy about the stranded vessel at Padukere. The sepoy told him that he would go the residence of the Customs Inspector, Malpe, and inform him about the stranded vessel. The plaintiff wanted to accompany him. But, the sepoy told the plaintiff that as the house of the customs inspector is at a distance of more than four kilometers, the plaintiff need not accompany him and that he would go on his bicycle. Thereafter, the plaintiff returned to his house at about 6.45 a.m.;