IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA P. Fracshida Charlotte Kamalachchiwatta, Janapadaya Pilakatumulla, N aththandi ya. C.A 74/1998 (F) D.C. KUliyapitiya Case No /M PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. P. S. Jennet Costa. 2. J. M. Nimal Jayathilaka Post. DEFENDANTS And 1. P. S. Jennet Costa. 2. J. M. Nimal Jayathilaka Post. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs.

2 2 P. Fracshida Charlotte Kamalachchi watta, J anapada ya Pilakatumulla, N aththandi ya. PLAINTIFF -RESPONDENT BEFORE: Anil Gooneratne J. COUNSEL: M.C. Jayaratne with M.D.J. Bandara for 1 5t & 2 nd Defendnat-Appellant Lal C. Kumarasinghe for the Respondent ARGUED ON: DECIDED ON: GOONERA TNE J. This was an action filed in the District Court of Kuliyapitiya claiming damages for injuries caused to the Plaintiff by the Defendants, on or about in a sum of Rs. 2,00, It is in evidence and as pleaded in the plaint that on , when the Plaintiff and another person called Elizabeth Beeta entered a land described in paragraph 2 of the

3 3 plaint the Defendants assaulted the Plaintiff with blunt weapons etc. and caused severe injuries to the Plaintiff. Parties proceeded to trial on 5 issues raised by Plaintiff only. Judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff in a sum ofrs. 1,54,0001- made up as follows. Rs. 1,30,0001- was awarded for causing bodily injuries and mental state. (pain of mind). According to the judgment of the original court a sum of Rs. 14,4001- awarded for nursing care at the rate of 1,2001- per mensum for a period of 1 year. Medical expenses Rs. 10, The total sum amounts to Rs. 1,54, At the hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the Defendant-Appellants confined this appeal only to the award of damages by the original court as aforesaid and argued that the amount awarded by court is far excessive in the circumstances of the case. It was his case that no amount of money should be awarded for pain of mind and invited this court to reduce such amount and or award a reasonable sum. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent supported the judgment of the learned District Judge and invited court to consider the several injuries caused to Plaintiff with reference to Medico-Legal Report marked PI and submitted to court that the amount awarded by the District Judge is justified in the circumstances of this case.

4 4 The learned counsel for Respondent also submitted to court that the Defendant-Appellants were convicted in the Magistrate's Court. In view of the position taken up in this appeal by the learned counsel for Appellant the only question to be decided in the appeal is whether the sum awarded as damages is justified. There is evidence as regards the nursing facilities and that amount had been quantified by the learned District Judge to be Rs. 14,4001- and Rs. 10,0001- for medical expenses. I refer to the relevant excerpts from the judgment of the original court on the amount of damages. (5Z; ~@CS»aa)@cs) ffi)~ er }e> erz;a)d ~z;5)d e>a)ffi er~z;~ 45 erz;a)@cs) ffie» e»ts)edcocl) aa)~@o~ 005) Q)e> 6X.o) erz;o). 1 e>5) ~Oz;e» er~oz;~ 22 ~ e>5) ero)o, (i)~ ~z;5)d oz;6x.o>e>~ 00@CS)5) a)5) Q)e>rn ~oz;e»d ~ffi er~oz;~ 14 ~ e>5) ero)o erz;a) CS)z;tS)z;~ ~oz;@e>~ Q)e>rn 6X.o) ~w@a)~ (5~ (5Z; e>z;6) tma D er@(5)@ts»ffirn O)rnrne>a)~ erz;b) ~ ero)o, ~ er~ as CS)z;tS)z;~ ~ a) erz;a)@cs) (5)ffi@ CS) 5) 5)0)0 00 oz; ~@Cl)aa)D C~~ tffio 5)0)0 E) erz;o). (5Z; ~@Cl)aa)D e>z;6) 00 CS)z;8> ~ts» ffitmc> oz;. erz;o). a@ffi 5) ~@a) e>cs;)@a)~ er~oz;~~tmc> oz;. 14,400/- erz;b) Q)e> a)ffi.

5 5 az; ffi)&d$ erz;co emes:> rneq)es5ees5 er)~ee) Q)e>~ D ea8> CO~. etmed ee>a>rn a~e> erz;co er~ e>es:> IjJOZ; ea~~m@tm eee>~~ e>oz;es5 emes5 eq)ec5)rn mes5es:» Q)e> erz;coecs5 ffi)~ecoes5 az;c5)z;~@ ee). eee>~~ Qrntm)O ffic5) eojc5)@d CO) e5 ~C5) 00 erz;rn E)co~ Sco@@ Q)@es:> E)D ffi) >es:>~ecoes5 oz;. 10,000/- &D a in e>z;coe) erz;rn Q)e> ea8> co~. az; ~@tm)acod ~ E) erz;rn 1jJe»@eaS Q)oaa>@ tm@ ffi Q)es5We> az; ~@tm)aco ~ eee>~~ e>oco) ffi)~ ~ erz;a>. ~ ffi)~cod adc5)z;5) ffi)~ e)rnrnco 00 es:>z;a>. e5 er@e> az; ~@tm)acod S~ E) erz;rn 1jJe»@ ffic5) ~a, 1jJe»@eaS Q)oaa>@ tm@, ~ 1jJe»@CO ~C5) er~ e>es:> ea>&d erz;cod ~ e) erz;rn G)aatm ee)~es:>>e> ~ )es:>stm SIDle> ffi Q)es5We> az; ~@@ 00 erz;rn ffi)~ 8@mB). az; ~@tm)acod ~ E) erz;rn 1jJe»@ecoes5 erz;coecs5 ffi)&d$ er~ ~z;es:>d rn erz;cod G)aatm ee)~es:»e> ~ >es:>~tm SIDes:>c.o rneq)es:> Q)e>rn D ea8> co~. e5 ffi Q)es5we> ~z;es:>d e)rnrnooz;emes5 er@)c5) mz;8>@d er~rnco rneq)es:> Q)e> D ea8> co~. ~ 1jJe»@ecoes5 az; ~@tm)acod ~ E) erz;rn G)aatm e~es:»e> ~ >es:>~tm gljj ~~@ etm>a ~ coes5es:> ffi Q)es5We> ffi)w)oin ~ecoes5 ~~@&D 6)oinco B>O er~~ ee). etmed 00 erz;rn ffi)~ er@e> ffi~tm) Q)@) az; ~@tm)acod ~ e) erz;rn G)aatm ee)~es:>>e> ffic5) )es:>~tm SIDle> ~C5) erz;cod

6 6 oz;. 1,30,0001- CS)z;~ C) lfcooo m@q>6) Q>~c) oo!ix)co oo. The incident was on This court is not inclined to interfere with the assessment of the learned District Judge as regards nursing facilities and medical expenses. Other question is whether the amount of Rs. 1,30,0001- awarded for continuous pain of injuries and pain of mind is justified in the circumstances of the case. Medical evidence has not been contested and as such court has no reason to reject such material. Injury No 2 is described as grievous injuries, in report PI. The long line of decided cases have adopted the principle that pain and suffering cannot be precisely calculated and there are no scales and an arithmetical scale cannot be adopted. Court would have to arrive at a reasonable sum. In Jayakody vs. Jayasuriya 2005(1) SLR 216/ The plaintiff-respondent instituted action against the defendant appellant claiming damages for injuries suffered by him as a result of the attack by the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant denied the averments in the plaint. After trial, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the defendant-appellant. It was contended that the trial court had erred in awarding damages, taking into consideration the element of pain and suffering undergone by the plaintiff-respondent as a result of the injuries. Held (i) in an action for personal injuries the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation for pain and suffering;

7 7 (ii) in regard to pain and suffering there are really no scales by which pain and suffering can be measured and there is no relationship between pain and money. Court can only give a general equitable assessment. In all the above circumstance I do not wish to interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge. Judgment had been entered after a proper evaluation and analysis of evidence. I see no legally acceptable basis to interfere with the judgment of the District Judge and I affirm the judgment and dismiss this appeal without costs. Appeal dismissed. /~~ ~"J-:J2",, ~~!,~ JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL