Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Erode & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No. 10930 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No. 5598 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Vicarious Liability - Criminal Complaint - Sections 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C - [Section 304(A), Section 288] - The court held that the owner of the building cannot be held vicariously liable for the accident occurred in the building, as the responsibility for supervision and safety measures was entrusted to the Company Supervisor and Building Supervisor. The court referred to legal principles established in previous judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a building, seeks to quash a criminal complaint for offences under Section 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C, arising from a wall collapse that caused the death of a worker. The petitioner argues that he cannot be held vicariously liable as the supervisory responsibility was entrusted to others.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the owner cannot be held vicariously liable for the accident as the responsibility for supervision and safety measures was delegated to the Company Supervisor and Building Supervisor.
Issues: The main issue was whether the owner of the building could be held vicariously liable for the accident that occurred in the building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that the owner cannot be held vicariously liable if the responsibility for supervision and safety measures was delegated to others.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the complaint in C.C.No.197 of 2018 is set aside.
Key Points: - A building owner cannot be held vicariously liable for accidents if supervision and safety measures were delegated to others (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The owner is not liable when the cause of death was the negligence of the supervisor or contractor, not the owner’s own act or omission (!) (!) (!) . - Liability under Sections 304(A) and 288 requires the act causing death to be a direct, proximate, and negligent result of the accused’s conduct, not merely a breach of safety regulations (!) (!) (!) . - The complaint failed because the necessary elements of rash or negligent conduct proximate to the death were not made out (!) (!) (!) . - Delegation of supervisory authority to a company supervisor and building contractor removes the owner’s criminal liability for accidents arising from that delegated duty (!) (!) . - Courts rely on prior judgments to establish that only the person entrusted with supervision can be held criminally liable (!) (!) (!) . - The death occurred due to lack of proper safety measures by those responsible for supervision, not the owner's direct involvement (!) (!) . - The principle of proximate cause and absence of direct control or supervision by the owner are central to the decision (!) (!) (!) . - The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the complaint was set aside based on these principles (!) (!) . - Witnesses and records confirmed the owner was not present and did not control the activities at the time of the accident (!) .
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.197 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode and quash the same against the petitioner herein.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner/3rd accused to quash the Criminal complaint in C.C.No.197 of 2018, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode.
2. The facts leading to filing of charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Section 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C arose due to a wall collapsed and fell on a worker, on 11.09.2018, at about 23.30 hours at P&C Tower, No.140, Perundurai Road, Erode. The said accident occurred when the labourers were working in one of the rooms of the building, removing bricks the wall collapsed and caused death of Pankaj Palai.
3. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.556/2018 dated 12.09.2018 against Building Supervisor A1 (Prakash), Company Supervisor A2 (Charles Victor) and owner of the building A3(Rajesh).
4. The petitioner, who is the owner of the building seeks quashment of the complaint alleging that having entrusted the supervisory responsibility to the Company Supervisor and the Building Supervisor, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the incident which occurred in his absence. Due to sudden collapse of the wall, while cleaning the floor it has fallen on the deceased Pankaj Palai. In the Final Report, it is stated that no proper precaution and safety measures were taken by the accused persons to prevent the accident. However, while the supervisory responsibility been entrusted to the contractor or any other individual, for the purpose of supervision, only such person can be held criminally liable. Even according to the complaint, omission to provide safety gears is the breach of responsibility of Building Supervisor Prakash (A1) and the Company Supervisor Charles Victor (A2). While so, the owner cannot be expected to be omni present every where. He has been prosecuted for the accident occurred in his building without the knowledge or contribution. The ingredient to attract offences under Sections 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C., not made out from the complaint and documents relied. The petitioner/Rajesh, the owner of the building is no way connected with the negligence alleged in the complaint. Hence, complaint to be quashed.
5. In support of his submission, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i). Sasikumari and another -vs- The State, Inspector of Police, J5 Shastri Nagar Police Station, reported in MANU/TN/7612/2018.
(ii). Dr.Jeppiar and another -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police and Bija Mahali reported in MANU/TN/2257/2012.
(iii). R.P.P. Selvam -vs- State Rep. Sub Inspector of Police (iv). Ganesh -vs-. The State by, Inspector of Police, Vadmadurai Police Station reported in MANU/TN/7164/2019.
(v). Gopi and others -vs- The State Represented by, the Inspector of Police, and another reported in MANU/TN/4032/2020.
(vi). Dr.Suresh and another -vs- The State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Law and other
6. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent/State submitted that admittedly the accident has occurred in the premises owned by the petitioner herein. Due to negligence, death of a worker [Pankaj Palai] occurred. Investigation indicates that the Company Supervisor as well as Building Supervisor have not provided safety gears to the workers. This has led to death of a worker on whom the neglected wall collapsed. Therefore, in the absence of formal contractual agreement between the site owner and the building contractor, the owner of the building is vicariously liable for the accident. Therefore, inclusion of the petitioner as one of the accused for offences under Section 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C., is legally sustainable.
7. In support of his submission, th
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of a building cannot be held vicariously liable for accidents if the responsibility for supervision and safety measures was delegate....
The cause of death should be a direct consequence of the accused's act, which should be either rash or negligent and proximate to the cause of such death, to establish liability under Section 304A of....
A Site Engineer lacking involvement in demolition activities and presence at the scene cannot be held criminally liable under Section 304 IPC without proof of the requisite knowledge or intention to ....
The act must be the immediate or proximate cause for the occurrence, and negligence must be of a high degree to constitute gross negligence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.
Vicarious liability does not apply to company directors unless statute provides for it; established there was no direct involvement in negligence by the applicants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
