'Evaded Payment For 16 Years': Kerala High Court Rejects Cop's Appeals Against Compensation Award To Lawyer He Assaulted

Justice Easwaran S. observed that there are no substantial questions of law raised in the regular second appeals and that the same were bereft of merits.

“The dispute started in the year 2010. For 16 years, the appellant was successfully dragging and evading the payment of compensation ordered by the Courts below,” the Court observed.

The lawyer was also awarded Rs. 15,000 as cost of the appeal.

The origin of the case was a dispute that happened in 2010, for which the lawyer (plaintiff) preferred two suits claiming compensation against the State and a few police officers, including the appellant herein.

According to the plaintiff, he was taken to custody and assaulted by the appellant, resulting in injury. He has further stated that SI of Kadavanthra Police Station falsified the registration of the case against him under Section 160 IPC.

The plaintiff has also stated that the appellant, along with the afore SI, had falsified the medical records in the General Hospital stating that the doctor, who had examined the plaintiff, had found traces of alcohol. Further, he had alleged that he was taken to a private hospital after release from the general hospital and he was treated as an in-patient. He produced certificate to prove the same.

Before the trial court, the appellant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. He also did not cross-examine the witnesses brought in by the plaintiff lawyer. The trial court went on to fasten liability on the police officers and awarded compensation. Aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Additional District Court (first appellate court).

The first appellate court found that there were inconsistencies in the appeal and the written statement. It then dismissed one of the appeals upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court. The other appeal was allowed in part by modifying the compensation granted and limiting the same to Rs. 1,26,554/- as against Rs. 1.5 lakhs with interest from the date of the suit till realization with cost throughout. Aggrieved, the appellant came before the High Court by preferring the present appeals.

Before the High Court, it was contended that the claim for compensation on account of a noxious act must be proved beyond any probable doubt. It was also pointed out that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant caused the injury, which led to the filing of the suits.

The appellant contended that on the date of the alleged incident, he had arrived at the spot on scooter while the plaintiff had not proved that the appellant had arrived in jeep when he stated that he was taken in a jeep and manhandled. He also objected to the quantification of damages and submitted that there was nothing conclusive to prove the extent of injuries suffered by the plaintiff.

After hearing the parties, the Court found that the question to be considered is whether it should interfere with the decisions of the courts below when the appellant failure to adduce evidence earlier.

The Court noted that though the appellant claimed that he was exonerated in the departmental enquiry, there was no evidence rendered. It also took note of the fact that there was no explanation from the appellant regarding failure to adduce any evidence. Moreover, it opined that it cannot ignore the findings of the first appellate court regarding the inconsistencies in the cases projected by the appellant at the first appellate stage and trial stage.

The Court, thus, dismissed the appeals.

Case No: RSA Nos. 254 and 256 of 2026

Case Titles: Sukumaran P.N. v. Vimal K. Charles and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 379

Counsel for the appellants: P.T. Sheejish

Counsel for the respondents: A.T. Renju, E.N. Hari, M.N. Manmadan

Click to Read/Download Judgment