Tort - Liability of State - Vypeen Liquor tragedy - Number of persons died following the consumption of liquor - There is a legislative recognition of the liability and quantum of compensation payable in similar situations, where proof regarding negligence and actual loss is dispensed with. -State is made liable in view of its viicarious liability for the action of its licensees and for the wrongful omission by its officers to act in accordance with the statutory provisions. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. [Vypeen Vishamadya Koottakola Virudha Samithi vs State. W.A.No. 1184 of 1993. Dated 2nd July, 2001. K.K.Usha (CJ) & Kurian Jospeh (J)]
Damages - Dangerous article escape - Act of God - Strict liability.
As a result of a breach of the retaining wall of the mud tank molasses overflowed contaminated the water channel resulting in the inundation of the respondents' land by molasses laden water and that the breach of the wall of the tank and the consequent damage suffered by the respondents were attributable to actionable negligence. Awarded damages. Rule in Raylands vs Fletcher, (1968)LR HL 330. Accepted. [ Mukesh Textile Mills (P) Ltd vs. H.R.Subramanya Sastry. AIR 1987 Kant 87. Venkitachaliah {J}]
Damages - Negligence of police officials - State wide hartal - Finding that there was negligence on the part of the State authorities merely because the incident took place in which the hotel of the petitioner was looted and damaged is not correct -Order of the single judge, set aside - Distinction between payment of exgratia and damages - [State of Kerala vs P.Gangadhara Pillai. W.A.No. 1414 of 1995. Dated 13th November, 2001. B.N.Sreekrishna (CJ) & M.Ramachandran (J)]
Damages – Supreme Court can award under Art.32 – “Fine” is different . Environmental Pollution – Principle of “polluter pays”.
The powers of the SC under Art.32 are not restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a writ petition as has been ages in a PIL or a Writ Petition . In addition to damages, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. The considerations for which “fine” can be imposed upon a person guilty of committing an offence are different from those on the basis of which exemplary damages can be awarded.[ M.C.Mehta vs. Kamath Nath and others. AIR 2000 SC 1997. S.Saghir Ahamed & Doraiswamy Raju (J&J)]
Electricity Act, 1910 - Death due to electrocution - Overhead wire running across road - Wire snapping electrocuted - Cycle rider electrocuted - Negligence.
Electricity Board has refused to maintain the fuse mechanism properly. Had it been maintained the death could have been avoided as the fuse would have been blown off automatically on the snapped electric overhead conductor falling on him and getting earthed through his body when he was lying on the ground. Snapping of wire is not an Act of God, Board is liable to compensate. [ T.Gajayalakshmi Thayumanavar vs Secretary,P.W.D.Govt of Tamil Nadu. AIR 1997 Mad 263 . K.A.Swami {C.J} & AR.Lakshman {J}]
Compensation - Victims of police firing in backward area of Bihar - Enhancement.
Court doubled the compensation payable to victims of police firing in backward area of Bihar. Court directed the State to pay uniform amount in all cases. Apart from this the relatives can also claim a just compensation according to law of torts. [ Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights vs State of Bihar. AIR 1987 SC 355 = (1987)1 SCC 2651987 SCC(Cri) 58 =1987 Crl.L.J 528. R.N.Misra & M.M.Dutt {JJ}]
Compensation - Victims of police firing in backward area of Bihar - Enhancement.
Court doubled the compensation payable to victims of police firing in backward area of Bihar. Court directed the State to pay uniform amount in all cases. Apart from this the relatives can also claim a just compensation according to law of torts. [ Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights vs State of Bihar. AIR 1987 SC 355 = (1987)1 SCC 2651987 SCC(Cri) 58 =1987 Crl.L.J 528. R.N.Misra & M.M.Dutt {JJ}]
Compensation for riot victims - Communal riots - PIL maintainable.
Petition for redressal of public injury suffered by a section of community , instituted by lawyers and law students, was maintainable as PIL. Its power was not merely to prevent the violation of fundamental rights but also to remedy and provide relief against the breach of those rights. [R.Gandhi vs Union of India. AIR 1989 Mad 205= 1988 II MLJ 493. SA.Khader {J}]
Compensation - Writ petition by practicing lawyer for compensation to a rape victim - Petition maintainable notwithstanding that suit could be filed for damages in civil court.
When public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of the Fundamental Rights which is involved or the enforcement of fundamental public duties, the remedy would still be available under the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law. [Chairman, Railway Board and others . vs Mrs. Chandrima Das and others. AIR 2000 SC 988. 2000 (1) jt 426 = 2000 AIR SCW 649 = 2000 (2) SCC 465. S.Saghir Ahmad & R.P.Sethi (J&J)]