[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Tapan Dey vs The State Of Tripura on 7 January, 2026
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RSA No.27/2025
Sri Tapan Dey, S/O. Late Rasaraj Dey, R/O. A.D. Nagar, Road No. 9, P.O. &
P.S.-A.D. Nagar, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Govt. of Tripura, P.O.-Kunjaban, New Secretariat Complex,
District-West Tripura.
2. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, P.O.-Kunjaban, District-West Tripura.
3. The Director, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura, New
Secretariat Complex, P.O.-Kunjaban, District-West Tripura.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Agartala Municipal Council City Centre,
Paradise Chowmuhani P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
5. The Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Agartala Municipal Council City Centre,
Paradise Chowmuhani P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
6. The Executive Officer, South Zonal Office, Agartala Municipal Council,
Badharghat, A.D. Nagar, P.O.-A.D. Nagar, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
7. The Assistant Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation(DWS), Sub Division
No. II, Milan Sangha, Agartala, P.O.-A.D. Nagar, P.S.-A.D. Nagar, District-
West Tripura.
8. Sri Biswanath Dey, S/O. Late Rasaraj Dey, Resident of A.D. Nagar, Road
No.-9 P.S. & P.O.-A.D. Nagar, District-West Tripura.
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate,
Mr. Agniva Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Sr. G.A.,
Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,
Mr. Haradhan Sarkar, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Order
07/01/2026
Heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Samar Das, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradyumna Gautam,
Senior Government Advocate, Mr. Arjit Bhaumik and Mr. Haradhan Sarkar,
counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondents seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) for deficiency in service and
for damaging the life of the appellant by disconnection of water supply line of
the appellant and also for creating nuisance, unhygienic health hazard to the
appellant. He sought a direction to the respondents for arranging reconnection
of the water supply line to his house.
3. After contest, the trial Court granted compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the appellant to be paid by the defendant
No.8 in the suit along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the suit till the date of realization.
4. Challenging the same, the defendant No.8 preferred an appeal
being Money Appeal No.01 of 2021 before the Additional District Judge, West
Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2).
5. The lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court
insofar as the trial Court directed payment of compensation of Rs.1(one) lakh to
the appellant by the defendant No.8.
6. The lower Appellate Court noted the contentions of both sides,
extracted two paragraphs of the trial Court judgment and recorded the following
vague reasons:-
"10. Civil suits are decided on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. In the case in hand,
considering the evidence on record the case of the plaintiff is
much more probable than that of the defendant. There is
another established principle of law which is, "on a finding of
fact the appellate court cannot substitute its view just because
another view is possible." Before substituting such a view, the
appellate court has to set aside the view taken by the trial court
holding the same as perverse and wrong. Hence, I do not find
any perversity or illegality in the judgment, decree and order
of learned court below except finding as to the
compensation/damage of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the
appellant-defendant NO.8 to the respondent No.8-plaintiff.
The basic principle in tort regarding damage is that a
party can claim damages on the basis of losses or harm
suffered due to action or omission of any other party and the
Court assess damages on various factors including negligency,
defamation or wrongful acts and breach of statutory duties or
obligation.
The Court also assess actual loss, pain and suffering,
punitive damages, restitutio in integrum and compensatory
damage by delving into nature and extent of damage,
culpability of defendant and claimant contribution.
In the instant case, though damage has been awarded
but the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the evidence as to
the imposing compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-."
7. There is no discussion in the judgment about the evidence adduced
by both the parties, which is required to be reassessed since the lower Appellate
Court is also a Court of fact. Without discussing the evidence of the parties, it is
not open to the lower Appellate Court to say that he did not find any perversity
or illegality in the judgment, except the finding as to the payment of
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the appellant by the defendant
No.8.
8. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is
remanded to the lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration. The lower
Appellate Court is directed to follow Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, consider the
pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties and the legal principles
which are to be applied and then decide the Appeal in accordance with law.
9. This exercise shall be completed by 30.04.2026. No costs.
10. The instant Second Appeal is disposed of in view of above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.01.08 16:49:18 +05'30'
