1 2025:CGHC:53387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 50 of 2013 1 - Ajeet Verma S/o Punit Verma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kadar, P.H. No. 4, Tah. Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (Now Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara) C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Dwarika Verma S/o Kaleshar Verma, Aged About 50 Years, Kastkar, R/o Village- Kadar, P.S. And Tah. Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (Now Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara) C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 31-10-2025 1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07-01-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.03 B/2008 whereby the decree for payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff has been passed in his favour. 2. The facts emerges for consideration in the present appeal is that, the appellant was plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He was having certain agricultural lands of Khasra No.1119/9 area 0.235 hectare, Khasra No.1189/9 area 0.182 hectare, Khasra No.1189/7 area 0.336 hectare, Khasra No.1189/9 area 0.77 hectare at village Kadar, P.H. No. 4, Tah. Bhatapara, Distt. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.11.04 10:59:53 +0530 2 Balodabazar-Bhatapara (the then District Raipur). The aforesaid land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and his other family members in joint holdings. In the year 2007-08 the plaintiff has earned wheat, gram and mustard cop and after its harvesting he collected it in his thrashing field for its separation. It is alleged that on 13-04-2008 the defendant caused mischief by setting ablaze the said crops collected by the plaintiff in his field, by which the crops have been destroyed. He lodged report to the P.S. Bhatapara on 14- 04-2008 in which the defendant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 435 and 427 of the IPC. Considering the loss caused to the plaintiff by the act of the defendant he filed a civil suit for damages of Rs.66,000/- before the learned trial Court. 3. The defendant had submitted his written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that the crops of the plaintiff was burnt due to electrocution by the sparking of high voltage electric line and since the plaintiff was having old dispute with him, he made allegation against him that he caused loss to him. He denied his liability to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- Þ¼1½D;k fnukad 13-04-2008 dks izfroknh oknh ds vf/kiR; ds Qly 2 [kjgh xsgwa] 1 [kjgh puk ,oa 1 [kjgh ljlksa ds Qly esa vkx yxkdj oknh dks yxHkx 66]000@& #i;s dh gkfu igqWpk;k gS \ ¼2½ D;k oknh izfroknh ls {kfriwfRkZ dh jkf’k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gka rks fdruk \ ¼3½ lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ß 5. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and other witnesses PW-2 3 Pramila, PW-3 Yashoda, PW-4 Mansuram Sahu and relied upon the documents Ex-P/1 i.e. Rin Pustika of the land, Ex.-P/2 final report of the criminal case registered against the defendant, Ex.-P/3 memo dated 16-04- 2008 submitted by Tahsildar to the P.S. Raipur. Ex.-P/4 is spot inspection panchnama prepared by the Patwari, Ex.-P/5 is consent deed executed by Sukrita Bai, Sushila Bai, Sushil Kumar, Pramila and Ishwari Bai. 6. The defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and witnesses Ramavtar Das as DW-2 and Bihari Das as DW-3 in his support. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has come into conclusion that it was the defendant who caused fire on the crops of the plaintiff and the loss caused due to the act of the defendant. While answering the issue No.1 it was found that the plaintiff has proved issue No.1. The said finding recorded by the learned trial Court that defendant has caused loss to the plaintiff has not been challenged by the defendant. 8. With respect to the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant/plaintiff the learned trial Court has found that the plaintiff could not prove loss of Rs.66,000/- by leading cogent evidence, however, considering the evidence available on record, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded in favour of the plaintiff as compensation against the defendant/respondent herein. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the document Ex.-P/3 and Ex.-P/4 in which the Tahsildar has reported the loss of Rs.66,000/- which ought to have been considered by the learned trial Court against which only Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. He would further submit that crop of whole of the year of the plaintiff has been destroyed and looking to the economical condition of the plaintiff, entire amount of Rs.66,000/- should have been awarded by learned trial Court and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified to the extent of Rs.66,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in favour of 4 the plaintiff/appellant. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would oppose the submission made by leaned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is no cogent and sufficient evidence led by the plaintiff to prove that he was suffered loss of Rs.66,000/- as the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. Ex.-P/3 and P/4 are the documents obtained from the criminal case. He would also submit that from the document Ex.-P/3 it transpires that it is only a memo submitted by the Tahsildar to the police in the criminal case which is based on the report submitted by the concerned patwari, however, neither the patwari has been examined before the trial Court nor any assessment report of the damages have been produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- which does not suffers from any infirmity. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The defendant does not dispute that he has not caused any loss to the plaintiff and he has not challenged the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with respect to issue No.1. The only question remained for consideration in the present appeal would be the quantum of compensation. 13. The plaintiff came with the plea that he collected his crop of wheat, gram and mustard in his field for its thrashing which was destroyed by the defendant. He relied only on the documents Ex.-P/3 and Ex.-P/4 with respect to quantity of his crop. From perusal of the document Ex.-P/3 it transpires that it is a memo submitted by the Tahsildar Bhatapara to the concerned police in criminal case registered against the defendant which has been based on the report submitted by the patwari. From the document Ex.-P/4, it transpires that it is only a spot inspection panchnama and there is no assessment of any loss caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff neither examined the patwari nor submitted any damage report with respect to damages of his crop. When the plaintiff comes with specific plea that the defendant caused loss of 5 Rs.66,000/- by destroying his crop he should have come with the specific evidence with respect to loss or its assessment. From the evidence of PW-4 Mansuram Sahu it further transpires that no panchnama regarding assessment of damage has been prepared in the village meeting which he admitted in para 8 of his cross-examination. In the present case, the learned trial Court has also considered that except documents Ex.-P/3 and Ex.-P/4 the plaintiff could not produce any evidence with respect to the damages or quantum of his damages, however, considering the fact that the defendant has caused loss to the crop of the plaintiff the learned trial Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 14. From consideration on the entire evidence and the pleadings made by the parties, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff towards loss caused to him by the act of the defendant. Accordingly, the present first appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 15. The parties shall bear their own cost(s). 16. Appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil