IMPORTANT POINT
Torts--Compensation--Commission of Murder--Murder was committed by defendants by causing multiple injuries on person of deceased--Deceased was an agriculturist--Compensation awarded in sum of Rs.2,50,000/- not on higher side.

Sham Sunder, J.:- This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2005, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation with interest, and the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, was dismissed.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the decision of the appeal, are that on 27.06.1995 Shaukeen Singh, defendant no.2, servant of Sucha Singh, defendant no.1 was playing obscene songs, on the tape recorder, at a loud voice. Balkar Singh (now deceased) asked Shaukeen Singh, defendant no.2, not to play obscene songs as there were ladies in the surrounding area. Defendant no.2 took ill and reported the matter to Sucha Singh, defendant no.1. He falsely alleged that Balkar Singh (now deceased) had given beating to him. Sucha Singh, defendant no.1 (now appellant no.1) armed with a Takua, Shaukeen Singh, defendant no.2, (now appellant no.2) armed with a Kirpan, Pal Singh, defendant no.3 (now appellant No.3) armed with a Kirpan and Satto, defendant no.4 armed with a datar, came to the residence of Balkar Singh, (since deceased) and forcibly kidnapped him to their farm-house. They caused serious injuries, on the person of Balkar Singh. It was further stated that on account of the injuries, caused on his person, by the defendants, aforesaid, Balkar Singh, died. It was further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Rajwant Kaur, plaintiff (now respondent no.1), Amrik Singh and Shamsher Singh, who also sustained injuries at the hands of the defendants (now appellants). It was further stated that all the defendants with common intention, committed the murder of Balkar Singh, deceased. FIR No. 122 dated 28.06.1995, under Sections 302, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against them. They were arrested and had been facing the criminal trial. It was further stated that the plaintiffs (now respondents) were dependent upon Balkar Singh (since deceased). It was further stated that on account of his death, they became orphans and destitute persons. It was further stated that at the time of commission of murder of Balkar Singh, his age was about 30/35 years and he used to contribute his whole income for the welfare and the maintenance of the plaintiffs (now respondents). Ultimately, the plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, on account of the commission of murder of Balkar Singh, deceased, with interest, at the rate of 18% per annum.

3. The defendants, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing joint written statement, wherein, it was denied that Balkar Singh, (since deceased) was having any income. It was stated that since he was not earning any amount, the question of contributing the same, for the maintenance and welfare of the plaintiffs, did not at all arise. It was further stated that Balkar Singh, died a natural death and was thrown in the fields of Sucha Singh, defendant no.1 (now appellant no.1), just to grab his property. It was stated that the defendants were convicted by the Court of Sessions, but they have already preferred an appeal in this Court. It was denied that they committed the murder of Balkar Singh. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed, by the trial Court:-

“1- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from the defendants on account of murder of Balkar Singh, their predecessors-in-interest, as alleged? If so to what effect ?OPP

2- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD

3- Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD

4- Whether the plaintiffs are dependent upon deceased B