Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
A.M. Sapre, J.
State of M.P.
Vs.
Mangilal and others
M.A. No. 612 of 1999
Decided On: 09.05.2000
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Miss. Sharma, Panel Advocate For State
For Respondents/Defendant: None
The state has a duty to ensure the safety of citizens and is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident - The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a citizen in a motor accident due to the negligence of a state employee, emphasizing the state's vicarious liability and duty to ensure the safety of citizens.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is by the state against an award of compensation for the death of a citizen in a motor accident due to the negligence of a state employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal had no substance, upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and emphasized the state's duty to ensure the safety of citizens and not to rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens.
Issues: The issue was whether the state's appeal against the compensation awarded for the death of a citizen in a motor accident due to the negligence of a state employee had merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the state's vicarious liability for the actions of its employees, the duty of the state to ensure the safety of citizens, and the need for the state to act as an honest person when dealing with citizens.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in limine as being devoid of substance.
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is by the state against an award dated 12-2-1999 passed by Claims Tribunal Rajgarh. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation for the death of one Babulal who died in a motor accident that occurred on 24-3-1988.
2. Heard Miss Sharma, Panel Advocate for State on the question of admission.
3. Having heard the matter, I am of the view that this appeal has no substance whatsoever. Here is a case where one citizen has lost his life due to negligence of State i.e. employee of State. Obviously the State is vicariously liable for the action of their servant. A compensation of Rs. 60,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for the loss of human life is most reasonable and fair one. Even under the Act, the parliament has come forward to fix a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the principal of no fault liability. I therefore fail to appreciate as to why even the State should file appeal to challenge the grant of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. The apt observation of his Lordships M.C. Chagla, C.J. in the case of Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India, AIR 1954 Bom. 50 squarely appeals to this case. His Lordships while deciding a lis between citizen on the one hand and State on the other hand observed in his concluding para:
(d) Practice State and Citizen Technical pleas --
When the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities and is the State if satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person.
4. The State owes a duty to ensure safety of human being and not to fight litigation on such trifle matters. It has to respect the verdict of a competent Tribunal. Merely because, a right of appeal is available to State like a ordinary litigant it does not mean that in every case such right has to be exercised.
5. I find in the facts of this case that no case whatsoever was made out to upturn the impugned award. It is a clear case of negligence of driver of vehicle owned by State. The finding of negligence is unassailable and has to be upheld even at the cost of reappraisal of evidence. The state is fortunate not to saddle with the cross appeal at the instance of claimant for enhancement.
6. Appeal being of devoid of substance the same is dismissed in limine.
