Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

My Issue wise findings are as follows:

Suit No. 327/14            Sh. Ram Kumar Vs. Biru Ram Jindal





ISSUE No. 1 & 2: 

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for he decree of permanent inunction? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of damages as claimed? OPP

9. As both the issues need common discussion of law and fact, both the above said issues are dealt with together. Burden to prove both the issues lies upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants are running their factory adjoining to the shop of the plaintiff and defendants are using heavy machineries in their factory which causes air and noise pollution which caused serious injury to the health of the plaintiff. By way of present suit plaintiff has prayed for the damages of Rs. 1,00,000/­ and further that defendant no. 5 be directed to revoke the licence of the other defendants.

14. Be that as it may, in the present case in hand it is stated by the plaintiff that because the air and noise pollution caused by the defendant, his hearing capability has been substantially reduced and he is suffering from heart problems and he is entitle for damages from the defendants under law of torts.

15. As discussed above injury and damage are two basic ingredients of law of tort. Plaintiff has to show that

a) There was a breach of duty on the part of defendant and

b) Injury was caused to plaintiff due to such breach.

16. Considering the law stated above, in the present case in hand, it is for the plaintiff to show that :

a) Plaintiff was not entitled to run his factory in said area.

b) That air and noise pollution was caused by the defendant Suit No. 327/14 Sh. Ram Kumar Vs. Biru Ram Jindal

c) That injury was caused to the plaintiff due to said noise and air pollution caused by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff except for the bald averments, made by him in the plaint, has not brought on record even a single piece of substantial evidence in order to prove his case.

INJURY

19. Plaintiff has merely placed on record several medical bills in order to show that injury was caused to him. However for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, none of the said bills were proved by summoning appropriate witness and same were tendered in evidence by son of the plaintiff and not by plaintiff himself. Further, even if for the sake of arguments, the bills so filed by the plaintiff are believed to be true and correct, nothing on record is placed by the plaintiff to show that the medicines so stated in the said bills are for the treatment of ear and heart problem. Further, plaintiff has not even placed on record any medical certificate in order to show his condition, neither examined any doctor or medical expert in order to prove his averments. Furthermore, even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that plaintiff is suffering from heart and ear disease, there is nothing on record to show that same was caused due to air and noise pollution caused by the defendants.