Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Singh And Others vs Joginder Singh And Another on 19 January, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 715 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 715 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : January 19, 2011
Sohan Singh and others .... Appellants
Vs.
Joginder Singh and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate
for Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate
for the appellants.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 1998-C of 2010 :
Deficiency in court fee is stated to have been made good. The application is, therefore, allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No. 1999-C of 2010 :
For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal :
Defendants having failed in both the courts below are in second R. S. A. No. 715 of 2010 (O&M) 2 appeal.
Respondents-plaintiffs Joginder Singh and his wife Amarjit Kaur filed suit against defendants-appellants for recovery of ₹ 3,00,000/-. Sharanjit Kaur - daughter of plaintiffs was married with defendant no.2, who is son of defendants no.1 and 3. Defendant no.4 is sister of defendant no.2. Sharanjit Kaur died on 25.08.1997 - just about six months after her marriage. There were dowry demands by the defendants, for which deceased was harassed. The deceased stayed at her parental home for about two weeks before her death. Defendant no.2 took her to matrimonial home on 24.08.1997 at 06:00 P.M. i.e. a day before her death. On 25.08.1997, at about 06:00 P.M., defendant no.1 Sohan Singh came to plaintiffs and told that Sharanjit Kaur was seriously ill. Plaintiff no.1, along with his nephew, went to the house of Harbans Singh - mediator and then to the house of defendants, where Sharanjit Kaur was vomiting in critical condition. She told plaintiff no.1 and his companions that defendants, in conspiracy with each other, had administered her some poisonous substance. They immediately took her to hospital at Raikot, but on the way, she died. Plaintiff no.1 lodged FIR with the police. Defendants were convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC) vide judgment dated 19.07.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for causing dowry death of Sharanjit Kaur. The plaintiffs alleged R. S. A. No. 715 of 2010 (O&M) 3 that they suffered loss of ₹ 1,50,000/-, which they spent on the marriage of the deceased. Defendants have also retained all dowry articles of the deceased. The plaintiffs also claimed ₹ 1,50,000/- on account of love and affection, mental torture, agony etc. Accordingly, making these averments, plaintiffs sought recovery of ₹ 3,00,000/-. The defendants, while admitting relationship between the parties as well as with the deceased and also admitting the death of Sharanjit Kaur on 25.08.1997, broadly denied the other plaint allegations. It was rather alleged that the deceased had illicit relationship with one Billu of her parental village and on account of separation from him, the deceased ended her life. It was denied that defendants caused the death of the deceased. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2007, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of ₹ 1,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.R. S. A. No. 715 of 2010 (O&M) 4
It is undisputed that appellants were convicted for causing dowry death of Sharanjit Kaur. Learned counsel for the appellants states that appeal preferred by the appellants against their conviction has recently been decided by this Court and only some relief has been granted to appellant no.4 and no relief has been granted to appellants no.1 to 3. It is undisputed that Sharanjit Kaur died in matrimonial home just six months after her marriage with defendant no.2. Defendants no.1 and 3 are parents of defendant no.2, whereas defendant no.4 is sister of defendant no.2. All of them stand convicted for causing dowry death of Sharanjit Kaur. In these circumstances, grant of compensation of ₹ 1,00,000/- to the plaintiffs, who are parents of the deceased, cannot be faulted.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiffs claimed ₹ 1,50,000/- for love and affection, mental torture and agony, but no compensation on this account can be granted, as enunciated by Full Bench of this Court in Lachhman Singh and others vs. Gurmit Kaur and others reported as AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 50. It was also pointed out that cost of dowry articles was very less.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Judgment in the case of Lachhman Singh (supra) is not applicable in this case because that was a case for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act. However, in the instant case, plaintiffs have claimed damages under R. S. A. No. 715 of 2010 (O&M) 5 General and Common Law and not under the Fatal Accidents Act. Secondly, courts below have awarded compensation of ₹ 1,00,000/- only. The said amount is less than the amount of expenses incurred by the plaintiffs on the marriage of the deceased. Moreover, plaintiffs are also entitled to compensation for dowry articles or Istridhan of deceased. General damages also cannot be denied to the plaintiffs, who have lost their daughter at the hands of appellants. Examined from any angle, compensation of ₹ 1,00,000/- awarded by the courts below cannot be said to be excessive in any manner and does not warrant reduction in instant second appeal.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal.
The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
January 19, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE