The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a civil suit seeking damages for personal injuries is maintainable even if parallel criminal proceedings have been initiated by the victim for the same incident. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam enhanced the compensation awarded to an assault victim from ₹4,04,000 to ₹8,55,000, finding the initial amount inadequate given the severity of his injuries and permanent disability.
The judgment came in two cross-appeals filed against the decision of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur. The plaintiff, who was the victim of the assault, appealed for an enhancement of compensation, while the defendants, who were the perpetrators, challenged the trial court’s decree holding them liable.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff, Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy, an agriculturist, filed a suit (O.S.No.68 of 2009) seeking ₹20,00,000 in compensation from the defendants, Dantla Subba Reddy and his brother. The plaintiff alleged that due to pre-existing civil disputes, the defendants dismantled his compound wall on March 31, 2006. When he and his brother questioned this action on the morning of April 1, 2006, the first defendant attacked him with a knife, stabbing him on the left temporal region (between the left eye and ear).
The assault caused grievous injuries, including sub-arachnoid and intraventricular hemorrhage, leading to the plaintiff losing consciousness. He was hospitalized for 22 days, from April 1 to April 22, 2006, and underwent surgical operations. The attack resulted in the paralysis of his right hand and leg, significantly affected his right eyesight, and caused a permanent disability assessed at 85%. The plaintiff stated that he incurred expenses of ₹5,00,000 for medical treatment across multiple hospitals.
The plaintiff had also initiated criminal proceedings against the defendants under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case resulted in the conviction of the first defendant under Section 326 IPC, a decision that was later upheld by the appellate court.
Arguments of the Parties
The defendants denied the plaintiff’s allegations, claiming that the plaintiff and his relatives were the aggressors. They contended that they had acted in their right of private defense and had also sustained injuries. They further argued that the civil suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had already invoked criminal law for the same incident.
The plaintiff, in his appeal before the High Court, argued that the trial court had erred by inadequately compensating him. His counsel, Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, submitted that the trial court had wrongly assessed his functional disability at 40%, despite a District Medical Board certificate (Ex.A-22) certifying it as 70%. It was also argued that the compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of marital prospects was insufficient.
Trial Court’s Decision
The II Additional District Judge, Guntur, after trial, partly decreed the suit on October 14, 2015. The court found that the defendants had indeed caused the injuries and awarded a total compensation of ₹4,04,000 with 9% interest. Dissatisfied, both the plaintiff (in A.S.No.1025 of 2016) and the defendants (in A.S.No.233 of 2016) appealed to the High Court.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court framed three primary points for consideration:
- Whether a civil suit for damages is maintainable when criminal proceedings on the same matter have already been initiated.
- Whether the defendants inflicted injuries on the plaintiff.
- Whether the compensation awarded by the trial court required modification.
On Maintainability of the Civil Suit: The court rejected the defendants’ primary contention. Analyzing Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the bench noted that Section 357(5) explicitly anticipates a subsequent civil suit. The provision states: “At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.”
The bench held that this provision makes it clear that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently. Its purpose is to prevent double recovery by ensuring that any compensation awarded by a criminal court is adjusted in the civil court’s decree. The court observed, “The real rationale behind this statutory framework is to avoid double benefit by both civil and criminal courts.”
Since the criminal court had not awarded any compensation to the plaintiff while convicting the first defendant, there was no amount for the civil court to adjust. The High Court, therefore, answered the first point in favour of the plaintiff, holding the suit to be maintainable.
On the Infliction of Injuries: The court found overwhelming evidence—including the plaintiff’s testimony (PW-1), medical records (Ex.A-4, Ex.A-9), and the testimony of doctors (PW-3, PW-4, PW-5)—proving that the defendants were the aggressors and had caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also noted that the criminal case filed by the plaintiff had ended in a conviction, while the one filed by the defendants had resulted in an acquittal. This, the court concluded, firmly established the plaintiff’s version of events.
On the Quantum of Compensation: The High Court found merit in the plaintiff’s appeal for enhanced compensation and modified the trial court’s award under several heads:
- Loss of Income due to Disability: The High Court found the trial court’s assessment of 40% disability, based merely on photographs, to be “not sound as it is not supported by any scientific yardstick.” Considering the extensive medical evidence and the Disability Certificate, the court reassessed the functional disability at 50%. Using the multiplier method, the compensation for loss of income was enhanced from ₹3,84,000 to ₹4,80,000 (₹60,000 annual income x 16 multiplier x 50% disability).
- Medical Expenses: The court enhanced this amount from ₹10,000 to ₹1,00,000, observing that restricting the claim to only the bills produced would not be justified given the prolonged and extensive treatment.
- Pain and Suffering: This was increased from ₹10,000 to ₹50,000.
- Attendant Charges: Where the trial court awarded nothing, the High Court granted ₹75,000.
- Marital Prospects: The court noted that the plaintiff was 32 and unmarried at the time of the incident, and the injuries, including hemiplegia affecting his face, had “greatly affected the marital prospects of P.W.1.” It awarded ₹1,50,000 under this head, which the trial court had overlooked.
Resultantly, the High Court partly allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, enhancing the total compensation to ₹8,55,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit until realization. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed.
