GUNAWARDANE
VS.
AMARASINGHE AND ANOTHER

COURT OF APPEAL
EKANAYAKE. J.
ANIL GOONARATNE.J
CA 1010/95 [F]
DC GALLE 5514/07
8TH FEBRUARY, 2007

Damages in a civil case - Penal Code Section 316-Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 206, Section 266 [4] - Effect of compounding - Is the question of compounding the charge in the Magistrate's Court important for the civil case / Conviction on a plea of guilt when relevant.

The plaintiff claimed Rs. 50.000/- as damages on an alleged assault on him by the respondent. The criminal case in the Magistrate's Court was

compounded and settled on the initiative of the plaintiff-appellant for a sum of Rs. 1500/- the accused being acquitted. The Trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs action, holding that the plaintiff has no right to proceed to claim damages in the civil courts - Court also found that there was no evidence placed before Court to prove that he has suffered damages to establish the amounts prayed for.

Held:

Per Anil Gooneratne. J

"I am inclined to take the view that in the context of this case the trial Judge's reasoning on the question of he apellant having no right to proceed to claim damages in the Civil Court is acceptable, the end result should be that be that no one should be liable to receive double compensation.

Per Anil Gooneratne. J

"However my view on this aspect should not be interpreted to offend the principle that a defendant cannot disminish the damages by the plaintiff receiving compensation for injury under a policy of Insurance in a case of negligence.

(1) A conviction in a criminal case is no evidence of the facts on which that conviction was based in a civil case In which those facts are in issue or form the subject matter of the suit. But a conviction based on a plea of guilt is relevant and to prove in the judgment in the criminal case is admissible in evidence in the subsequent civil suit in which the facts giving rise to the charges are in issue or form the subject matter of the suit.

APPEAL from the judgment of the District Court of Galle.

Cases referred to:-

1. C.A.1014/2003(F)
2. Meenakshisunderam Chetty vs. Kuttimalee 1958 [Kerala] 39
3. W. H. Bus Co. Ltd. vs. Samaranayake 55 NLR 182 69
4. Peter and Others v. Parapati 69 NLR 525

Plaintff-appellant absent and unrepresented.

Champaka Ladduwahetty for the 1st defendant-respondent.

February 26, 2007
ANIL GOONARATNE, J.

This appeal arose as a result of a Damages suit filed in the District Court of Galle where the Plaintiff alleges an assault on him by the Defendants. A sum of Rs 50,000/-. was claimed as damages, but the learned District Judge of Galle dismissed the Plaintiff's action by his judgment of 23.6.1995.

At the hearing of this appeal the Plaintiff Appellant was absent and unrepresented. The 1st Defendant Respondent was represented by counsel. The 2nd Defendant has not been present at the trial in the original Court.

The version of the Appellant is that on 4.12.1986 at Digaredda, Ahangama he was assaulted by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. On the day in question when he was in his house the Appellant heard a noise and when he went out of to inquire about it the 1st Defendant hit him with a torch which dislodged two of his teeth and the 2nd Defendant assaulted him and such assault resulted in injuries to the Appellant The Appellant was hospitalized for just one day. It is also in evidence that the Appellant complained to the police about this assault and the police filed charges under Section 316 of the Penal Code in the Magistrate's Court against the Defendants. The case in the Magistrate's Court had been compounded and settled on the initiative of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1500/-. The charge sheet filed in the Magistrate's Court has been marked as 'Pl' and the journal entry of 17.12.86 were marked as 'P1P' by the Plaintiff.

The learned District Judge in his judgment inter alia observed that the question of dislodgement of two teeth as narrated b