K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for damages claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by the defendants for the injury caused to him by the negligent act of the Police Sub-Inspector of Talikoti Police Station. ( 2 ) ON 16-5-1991 there was a political meeting, around 9. 45 p. m. The plaintiff was in the house of his uncle, it appears that some communal inflationary speeches are made resulting in riotous situation, the PSI comes to the scene with the troop of policemen, initially employs tear gas shells to control the riotous mob. When the situation becomes unwieldy, the PSI opened fire by shooting from his pistol. The plaintiff who was in the house of his uncle was injured. The plaintiff was treated in the hospital as inpatient for a month. The plaintiff is a student studying PUC at the time of incident. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is claimed as damages. ( 3 ) PER contra, the defendants contend that on the said day in the evening hours there was a political meeting, communal inflationary speeches were made by the speakers resulting in a riotous situation, the PSI with his battalion jumped into action to control the mob, the tear gas shells were used to disperse the mob, as a last resort, the PSI opened fire with his pistol to disperse the riotous assembly. The Sub-Inspector was discharging the sovereign and regal functions of the State therefore for the injury caused, neither the PSI nor the State become liable to pay damages. An ex-gratia of Rs. 2,500/- was paid to the plaintiff. ( 4 ) THE trial Court granted damages of Rs. 50,000/- and deducted the ex-gratia and directed Rs. 47,500/- to be payable without costs and interest. The State has filed this appeal. ( 5 ) NO doubt, the maintenance of law and order by the Police is exercise of sovereign and regal powers of the State and amounts to an act of State. The legal justification of firing by the PSI at that juncture for controlling the riotous assembling is a question of fact to be established by evidence. The defendants have not let in any evidence to show that the conduct of PSI in firing was warranted by circumstances and diligently done. The legal justification of firing by the PSI at that juncture for controlling the riotous assembling is a question of fact to be established by evidence. The defendants have not let in any evidence to show that the conduct of PSI in firing was warranted by circumstances and diligently done. On the other hand, the evidence placed by the plaintiff disclose that the plaintiff who was inside the house of his uncle was hit by the bullet. According to defendants' contention the PSI fired in the air to disperse the unruly crowd, if that is so, there would be no possibility of bullet hitting the plaintiff who was inside the house. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the fact of the case to suggest the negligent conduct of the PSI. The defendants have failed to prove the circumstances under which the firing took place, the mode and manner of firing by the PSI to successfully invoke the plea of act of State to avoid liability. In that view the finding of the trial Court that the defendants are liable to pay compensation is sound and proper. ( 6 ) ON the quantum, I find that the compensation is excessive. The plaintiff was in the hospital for less than a month. The plaintiff has not sustained any permanent disability. The global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- appears to be just and reasonable. The payment of ex-gratia need not be deducted from the compensation amount. Accordingly the judgment and decree of the trial Court is modified and I pass the following : order ( 7 ) THE appeal is allowed in part. The defendants are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of suit till payment with costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .