Syed Afzal vs The Manager Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5962 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                 SECOND APPEAL No.297 of 2014

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree

dated 20.10.2010 in A.S.No.152 of 2007 on the file of Special

Sessions Judge of SC/ST cases-Cum-VII Additional District Judge,

Warangal, which is arising out of the judgment and decree dated

27.04.2007, passed in O.S.No.1298 of 2003 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff.

3. Initially, the suit is filed by the plaintiff claiming damages of

Rs.75,000/- with interest from the defendants (bank authorities). The

case of the plaintiff is that the Branch Manager of the 1st defendant

Bank appointed him as an Attender in the month of December, 2000.

On 21.12.2000, when he was working, sustained grievous injury to

his left index finger, while operating the strong room by the Assistant

Manager namely Sri Radha Krishna negligently without any proper

caution, for which he took treatment in the hospital as in-patient and

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

got his left index finger operated. It is the further case of the plaintiff

that the Branch Manager promised him to pay his medical expenses,

as the incident occurred during the course of employment. The

plaintiff was paid salary on 18.01.2001 for the month of December.

Thereafter, though he worked in the bank from 06.08.2001 to

29.08.2001, without any notice, the defendant No.1 removed him

from service. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the suit

claiming total compensation of Rs.75,000/- as he incurred amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, an amount of Rs.15,000/-

towards pain and suffering and claims an amount of Rs.50,000/-

towards permanent disability.

4. On the other hand, the defendants filed detailed written

statement denying all the averments of the plaint. It is specifically

admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as an Attender on daily

wages basis on 21.12.2000 for a period of 30 days and that his

services were terminated on 19.12.2000. It is further stated that there

was a general strike of employees of the Bank all over India on

21.12.2000 and the business of the Bank, remained closed and the

strong room of the Bank was not at all opened. Therefore, the

question of plaintiff sustaining injuries on 21.12.2000 does not arise

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

and as such, he cannot claim any compensation from the bank and

prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the

following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff received injury to his left index finger on 21.12.2000 while operating the strong room door by Assistant Branch Manager negligently without any proper caution?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendants?

3. To what relief?"

6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1

to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-20 were marked and on behalf

of the defendants, D.W1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were

marked.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial

Court has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for

any damages and it was a specific finding of the trial Court that P.W1

was examined before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Presiding Officer of the

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

Tribunal held that P.W1 did not work on 21.12.2000. Ex.A-21, is

xerox copy of the order of the Tribunal. The plaintiff has challenged

the said order before this Court and this Court has confirmed the

orders of the Tribunal as per the own admission of the plaintiff. With

the above said finding, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an

appeal before the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases-Cum-VII

Additional District Judge, Warangal vide A.S.No.152 of 2007. On

hearing the appellant, the first appellate Court has framed the

following points for consideration.

"1. Whether the plaintiff attended for duty in the 1st defendant Bank on 21.12.2000?

2. Whether the first defendant Bank was closed on 21.12.2000 due to strike call given by its employees?

3. Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries while discharging the duty on 21.12.2000, he is entitled for any compensation?"

9. The appellate Court scrutinized the entire oral and

documentary evidence and gave a finding that the trial Court has

rightly dismissed the suit and that there are no merits in the Appeal.

It is pertinent to note that the Appeal was dismissed with costs and

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

the appellant was directed to pay court fees of Rs.2,946/- on the

plaint in the trial Court as well as the appellate Court totaling an

amount of Rs.5,892/- to the Government within one month from the

date of the judgment, failing which the same shall be recovered as

per the procedure and intimate to the District Collector, Warangal for

realization of the court fee amount.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is preferred

by the appellant raising the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the findings of both the Courts below are illegal for want of proper appreciation of facts and law as per the Evidence Act?

2. Whether the findings of both the Courts below is contrary to evidence on record more particularly as regards the injury suffered by P.W1 on 21.12.2001?

3. Whether both the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit on the basis of Ex.B- 1 to B-4 and evidence of D.W1 without appreciating the evidence of P.W1 to P.W3 as per law?

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

4. Whether the dismissal of the suit is legal and sustainable on the basis of Ex.B-1 to B-4 which remained not proved?

5. Whether the findings of the Courts below that PW-1 stopped working from 19.12.2001 is without any basis and on surmises and conjectures and hence illegal?

6. Whether the findings of the Courts below in drawing adverse inference for withdrawing salary is correct and legal?

7. Whether the findings of the Courts below are contrary to record of the case and deserves to set aside as illegal and unsustainable?

8. Whether the duty cast upon both the Courts was properly discharged in appreciating the evidence on record?

9. Whether for want of proper preponderance of evidence in the light of defence taken by the respondents, the decree under appeal is illegal?"

11. Second Appeal is of the year, 2014 and it underwent numerous

adjournments and is still coming up for admission.

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the

record.

13. On perusal of the entire record, it is evident that there is

no substantial question of law involved and the substantial

questions of law raised by the appellant are only on the factual

findings of the both the Courts below and are of not on law. It

is an admitted fact that on 21.12.2000, the employees of the

Bank went on strike and as such, the Bank was not working on

the said day and it is the specific admission of the plaintiff in

his evidence that he has no proof to show that he worked after

19.12.2000 and also admitted the fact finding covered under

Ex.A-21. Therefore, it can be construed that the plaintiff was

not working on the said day in the Bank and as such, he

cannot claim any compensation from the Bank.

14. It is pertinent to mention that there is limited scope under

Section 100 of CPC while dealing with the appeals by the High

Courts. In a Second Appeal, if the High Court is satisfied that the

case involves a substantial question of law, only then, this Court can

interfere with the orders of the Courts below. On perusal of the

GAC, J S.A.No.297 of 2014

entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the

orders of the Courts below are not perverse and there is no

misreading of evidence, and therefore in the absence of substantial

question of law, it is not proper to interfere with the concurrent fact

findings of the Courts below. Therefore, the Second Appeal deserves

to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of

admission confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 in

A.S.No.152 of 2007 on the file of Special Sessions Judge of SC/ST

cases-Cum-VII Additional District Judge, Warangal. No order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 17.11.2022 dv