Judgment :

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.

These two appeal suits have been instituted under Section 96, read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2015 in O.S.No.68 of 2009, passed by the learned II Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to by the nomenclature as they were arrayed in the trial Court.

3. O.S.No.68 of 2009 was instituted seeking to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum against the defendants.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2015, the learned II Addl. District Judge, Guntur decreed the suit in part for a sum of Rs.4,04,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 07.04.2008, till the date of deposit and also suit costs.

5. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.1025 of 2016 against the disallowed claim and the defendants filed A.S.No.233 of 2016 against the entire decree.

6. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in A.S.No.1025 of 2016 & respondent in A.S.No.233 of 2016 and Sri Ganta Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.233 of 2016 & respondent in A.S.No.1025 of 2016, apart from perusing the material available on record.

Brief case of the plaintiff:-

7. The plaintiff claims that he is an agriculturist and also has a rice mill. According to the plaintiff, there were civil disputes between him and the defendants 1 and 2, who are own brothers, filed a civil suit O.S.No.513 of 2006 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, by arraying the plaintiff and his family members as parties. It is further submitted in the present plaint that, on 31.03.2006, the defendants unlawfully and without any authority dismantled the compound wall belonging to the plaintiff. The said action of the defendants was questioned by the plaintiff along with his brother on the morning of 01.04.2006. As such, the defendants attacked him and his brother and the 1^st defendant stabbed the plaintiff with a knife on the left temporal region (between the left eye and left ear) and also caused bleeding injuries, which led to the plaintiff’s unconsciousness. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was shifted to People’s Trauma and Emergency Hospital, Guntur, on 01.04.2006, wherein, he took treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and also as an inpatient from 01.04.2006 to 22.04.2006.

8. The plaintiff stated that due to grievous injuries, he underwent surgical operations for sub-arachnoid and intraventricular hemorrhage. He also asserted that his right side, including both right leg and right hand, was paralyzed and as a result of it, he was unable to do the signature. He further stated that his right eyesight was also greatly affected and in the course of treating his grievous injuries, he underwent medical treatment in multiple hospitals situated in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu and also hospitals like NIMS, KIMS, and L.V.Prasad Eye-Institution located at Hyderabad.

9. In the process of medical treatment, the plaintiff incurred Rs.5,00,000/- towards expenses. He further asserts that due to his grievous injury, he has been permanently disabled to the extent of 85%, which has led to multifarious problems and rendered him unable to carry out his manual labour work. As such, he was forced to depend on a daily attendant, for whose services he spends Rs.3000/- per month as salary.

10. The plaintiff also states that, despite having completed his B.Com. degree course, he is not able to manage his work relating to the agriculture, rice-mill, and sericulture unit, which results in great fiscal loss to him. Plaintiff further submitted that he is 32 years old (at the time of instituting the plaint) and in view of grievous injury caused by the defendants, his marriage chances were also affected.

11. In a nutshell, the plaintiff claims a total compensation of Rs.20,00,00