RAJ KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SRIGANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 19-1-2005 by which the trial Court held that the petitioner is liable to pay Court- fee ad valorem on the valuation of the suit as the suit filed by the petitioner does not fall in the category of cases mentioned in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short the"Act of 1855"). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner suffered injury which was caused because of the fault of the defendant-non-petitioner and in view of Section 1-A even the injured person can maintain the action for recovery of damages for the wrong caused by the wrong doer and it is not necessary that only the claimants who can claim damages due to the death of the person alone can maintain the suit under the Act of 1855. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this High Court delivered in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Dharampal Singh (2000 DNJ (Raj) 42 wherein while considering the controversy relating to the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of awarding interim compensation under the Act of 1855, the Court observed that interim damages awarded to the claimants and, while doing so, the Court also used the word "injured".

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.