Back
1975 Supreme(P&H) 18
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bal Raj Tuli, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Lal Chand Sabharwal
First Appeal No. 17 of 1962,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 10, 1975
The State Government is liable for the injuries caused to a person as a result of the negligence of its employees, even if the accident occurred while the employees were acting in the course of their employment.
Headnote:
TORT - NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF STATE - ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE OF POLICE DRIVER - STATE HELD LIABLE - DAMAGES AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a lawyer and politician, was arrested and detained by the police without a warrant. He was being transported in a police van when the driver, who was fatigued and had requested to be relieved of his duty, dozed off and lost control of the vehicle, resulting in an accident that caused injuries to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police van was being driven by the driver in the course of his employment and that the accident was caused by his negligence. The court also found that the State Government was liable for the injuries caused to the plaintiff as a result of the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by time. 2. Whether the State of Punjab was liable because the accident occurred when the driver was acting in the performance of delegated sovereign functions of the State. 3. Whether the amount of Rs. 30,000.00 awarded by way of damages on account of permanent disability of the arm, etc., is excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not barred by time as it was filed within one year of the date of the accident, as per Article 22 of the Limitation Act. 2. The court held that the conveyance of an arrested or detained person to a place of the choice of the State with a view to his dispersal cannot be said to be a sovereign act. The State Government is clearly liable for the injuries caused to the respondent as a result of the accident which was caused by the negligence of the driver of the police van. 3. The court held that the amount of Rs. 30,000.00 awarded to the plaintiff as compensation for the injuries suffered and the resultant permanent disability of his arm was not excessive.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab and upheld the decree passed by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
1. Lal Chand Sabharwal (plaintiff-respondent) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 on account of damages on the following counts :-
1. Rs. 10,000.00 for loss of professional practice and actual medical expenses.
2. Rs. 30,000.00 on account of permanent disability of left arm, including weakness to the left shoulder, elbow, hand, eye-sight and all mental and physical sufferings therefrom, and
3. Rs. 10,000.00 on account to illegal arrest, wrongful confinement, insulting and inhuman treatment and harassment caused to him during the course of his wrongful confinement.
2. The facts pleaded were that the plaintiff was the Vice-President of Bhartiya Jan Sang, Punjab State, which started Save Hindi agitation in the State of Punjab in May, 1957, in collaboration with some other organisations. The plaintiff offered himself for this peaceful mission and reached Chandigarh Railway Station by train at about 4 A. M. on July 15, 1957, accompanied by a batch of 250 volunteers. On arrival, he and the members of his party were put under arrest and taken to different police stations under the escort of police force under the orders of Shri A. K. Kaul, Assistant Inspector General of Police, defendant No. 2. The plaintiff and his six companions were unlawfully detained in Chandimandar Police Station in an area infested with snakes, without service of any water and meals and were meted out a most inhuman treatment. At about midnight, the plaintiff and his companions were taken from Chandimandar Police Station to an unknown destination towards Ambala City in a bus under police escort, under the orders of Shri A. C. Tuli, Magistrate 1st Class. On the way they were forced to board police van No. PNE 4615 and the plaintiff was made to sit on the front seat and the driver was directed by Shri A. C. Tuli, Magistrate, to follow his jeep. When they reached Ambala City, the police van in which the plaintiff was travelling, turned towards Jullundur City, but the driver of the van was instructed by Shri Tuli to turn towards Karnal side. When the van reached Shahbad following the jeep of the Magistrate, another bus carrying Shri Jasdish Narain and others also arrived and then the Magistrate directed both the vehicles to proceed towards Jullundur City. At that stage, defendant No. 3, Gian Chand, Constable, who was driving the police van, expressed his inability to perform his duties as a driver any longer on account of fatigue caused by constant duty without any rest, respite or refreshment for several hours, and requested for being relieved. His request was not accepted in spite of the plaintiff s pleadings for him and he was directed to drive the police van towards Rajpura. At about 4 A. M. on July 16, 1957, the driver lost control over the vehicle which struck against a tree on one side of the road. As a consequence of that accident, the left arm of the petitioner was crushed and fractured followed by profuse bleeding. The Punjab State and its police force escorting the van did not render any first aid to the plaintiff in spite of the request made by him and his companions and he was admitted in Rajpura Civil Hospital in a precarious condition at about 5 A. M. His condition grew so serious that he had to be removed to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, at 8.15 A. M. The petitioner then narrated the course of treatment and claimed the amounts as stated above. The suit was resisted by the defendants and the following issues were framed :-
1. Did the plaintiff and other members of his party so to Chandigarh on 15th July, 1957, with a view to commit some cognizable offence ?
2. Was the plaintiff not kept in illegal confinement and unlawful detention by the defendants from 15th July, 1957, till his release ?
3. Was the plaintiff maltreated by the defendants while in their custody as alleged in para. No. 5 of the plaint and did it tantamount to infliction of mental torture on the plaintiff ?
4. Whether the accident occurred due to the gross negligence
