- (1.) CM No. 13849-C of 2011 Application for condonation of delay of 630 days in filing the appeal is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit. CM No. 13850-C of 2011 Application for exemption from filing the certified copies of the judgments and decrees are allowed in view of the averments made in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit. RSA No. 4755 of 2011 The present appeal has been filed by the defendants who are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the suit of the plaintiff had been allowed and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover amount of Rs. 73,700/- from defendants along with future interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the realization of the decretal amount vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 on account of causing injury to the plaintiff whereby he lost his vision in the left eye and his said eye had to be removed. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a peace loving person of village Kundal and the defendants are very forceful, strong headed and quarrelsome persons who had formed an unlawful assembly on 02.03.1999 at about 1.30 PM and defendant No. 1, Mahadev had hit some object on the left eye of the plaintiff and the left eye of the plaintiff was broken into pieces. The plaintiff was removed to Civil Hospital, Rewari and was medico-legally examined by Dr. R.A. Gupta and as the condition of the left eye of the plaintiff was serious, he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi. A criminal case was also registered and FIR No. 44 was got registered at police station Sadar Rewari on 04.03.1999. The plaintiff remained admitted at the hospital from 02.03.1999 to 08.03.1999 as indoor patient under severe pain and since the eye was damaged, it was removed by surgery on 03.03.1999. Accordingly, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for medicines, conveyance, loss of income, pain, suffering and permanent loss of vision on the ground that he is 43 years old and had become blind by one eye and that he was working as Gangman in the Railway Department and had suffered economical loss and was not able to drive any vehicle, and accordingly, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac.
(2.) The defendants, in defence, apart from taking various preliminary objections with regard to locus standi, maintainability and limitation, denied that Mahadev had caused any injury along with other defendants and defendant No. 1 along with defendant No. 4 were repairing the wall along with other persons. The plaintiff, along with other persons, came there and started uttering abuses and when defendant Nos. 1 & 2 raised objections, the plaintiff and other persons started beating them and since the plaintiff and his companions were armed with lathis and danda, defendant Nos. 1 & 4 rushed towards the roof of the house of the defendants and the said persons followed the defendants and climbed the roof of the house. It is pleaded that the plaintiff gave lathi blow on the back of defendant No. 4. Plaintiff, Manohar Lal also gave lathi blow on the head of defendant No. 4 and Itbari also gave a lathi blow on the leg of defendant No. 4. Thus, it has been pleaded that the defendant had not caused any injury and the plaintiff got his eye operated without any injury and the liability to pay was denied. The other defendants also filed similar written statements.
(3.) The trial Court, after taking into consideration the issues framed and the statements of 9 plaintiffs witnesses and 11 defendant's witnesses, noticed that the following injuries were there on the person of the plaintiff: 1. A.U. Shaped lacerated wound of 6 cm x 1 cm x skin deep was present on the left eye brow margins are irregular with fresh bleeding. 2. Cornea of left eye was ruptured, iris and vitrus was coming out from the wound blood was present in the enterior chamber. Case was referred to eye surgeon. 3. Lacerated wound of 1.5 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep was present on the near the nasal bridge margins were irregular with fresh bleeding nose was swollen. X-ray was advised. 4. A diffuse swelling was present on right partial area, near mid line x-ray was advised.;