Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1090 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Harbhajan Singh

2005-10-20

N.K.MODY

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1994 passed by V ADJ, Indore in Civil Suit No. 266-B/89 whereby the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed and appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,01.000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 8.11.1996, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit against the appellants on 20.11.1986 as an indigent person for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- along with interest @ 1 % per annum alleging that respondent was resident of Plot No. 724 at Bhagirathpura, Indore and was carrying on his business of Timberwood and fuel wood. 3. Further case of the respondent was that size of the plot which was in occupation of respondent was measuring 80 x 45 sq. ft. in which three rooms were constructed for the purpose of resident of respondent with his family and rest of the plot was being used for keeping the stock of wood and coal. It was alleged that household luggage was there, such as almirah, tape recorder, furniture, boxes, watch etc. It was also alleged that since the marriage of the daughter was to be organized shortly, therefore, there were ornaments and other articles of the marriage which were collected at that time. It was also alleged that there was a stock of 125 tonnes of firewood, timber wood etc. 4. It was alleged that on 1.11.1984, on account of assassination of the then Prima Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, riots took place in which damage was caused to Sikh Community. It was alleged that the appellant imposed curfew for the purpose of maintaining law and order situation. Respondent was assured by the Town Inspector of Banganga Police Station about the security. It was also alleged that Town Inspector of the concerned P.S. informed that two constables have been posted for the purpose of safety of the respondent. It was alleged that in the evening of 1.11.1984, the police officers came on spot and gave instructions to the constables who were posted on spot. Later on, the police constables left the place saying that they are not in a position to take care of security of the respondent. 5. It was alleged that in the evening of 1.11.1984, the police officers came on spot and gave instructions to the constables who were posted on spot. Later on, the police constables left the place saying that they are not in a position to take care of security of the respondent. 5. Further case of the respondent was that at 7.00 p.m. on that day the house and the Taal of the respondent was put to fire and father of the respondent, Manshasingh who was aged 79 years was injured. Thereafter father of the respondent was shifted to the rescue camp where treatment was given to him but on account of the incident, brother of the respondent, Ramsingh was compelled to take him to Punjab and on 14.2.1985, father of the respondent passed away. It was submitted that it was the duty of the appellant to maintain the law and order situation and to affect the curfew strictly so as to protect the family members and property of the respondent and other persons of the Sikh Community. It was alleged that on account of failure on the part of the appellants, respondent sustained a loss of Rs. 1,97,000/- for which a notice was given on behalf of the respondent. In response to the notice, appellant accepted Its responsibility legally and morally and paid a sum of Rs. 19,000/- as partial compensation. Hence, the suit was filed of recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 1,78,000/-. 6. Written statement was filed by the appellants wherein it was admitted that on account of assassination of Hon 'ble Mrs. Gandhi, who was the then Prima Minister, riots took place. It was alleged that all the steps were taken to maintain the law and order situation of the city. It was denied that respondent has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,97,000/-. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. 7. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed the issues. After recording the evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,01 ,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, which is under challenge in appeal. 8. Respondent has also field the cross-objections wherein it is alleged that the amount awarded by the learned trial Court is on the lower side and respondent is further entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of death of his father. 1,01 ,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, which is under challenge in appeal. 8. Respondent has also field the cross-objections wherein it is alleged that the amount awarded by the learned trial Court is on the lower side and respondent is further entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of death of his father. 9. Shri S.D. Bohra, Dy. G.A. for the appellants submit that undoubtedly it was the responsibility of the State Government to protect its citizens and since the appellant failed in protecting their loses which caused damage to the respondent, therefore, loss of respondent was assessed as Rs. 19,000/and the same was paid to the respondent. 10. Learned counsel further submits that to prove the losses, respondent has examined PW 1, Harisingh and PW 2. Ramkumar s/o Kanhaiyalal, photographer. It is submitted that from perusal of the statement, it is evident that respondent has failed to prove that respondent has sustained loss of property worth Rs. 1,97,000/-. It is submitted that the best evidence which could have been produced by the respondent to prove his losses were withheld such as documentary evidence to demonstrate that respondent was having a Taal of timber wood, fire wood and coal. It is submitted that a licence could have been produced by the respondent to demonstrate that respondent was having a shop on the plot. It is submitted that licence is necessary under the provisions of M.P. Shop & Establishment Act. Similarly, respondent could have produce the house-tax receipts of the house from the record of Municipal Corporation, Indore, which has not been filed. It is also submitted that neither the name of daughter whose marriage was going to be solemnized was disclosed nor it has been stated that on what date the marriage was fixed and ultimately on what date the marriage was performed. It is also not mentioned from where the ornaments were got prepared, what was the nature of ornaments and in whose custody the ornaments were kept. It is submitted that in the circumstance, the learned Court below committed error in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- to the respondent. It is further submitted that learned Court below has not assigned any reason how the Court came to the conclusion that the loss which has been caused to the respondent is amounting to Rs. 1,01,000/-. 11. It is submitted that in the circumstance, the learned Court below committed error in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- to the respondent. It is further submitted that learned Court below has not assigned any reason how the Court came to the conclusion that the loss which has been caused to the respondent is amounting to Rs. 1,01,000/-. 11. Shri P. V. Bhagwat, learned counsel for respondent submits that on account of the riots, father of the respondent was beaten and ultimately he died after three months and no amount has been awarded on that account. Learned counsel further submits that respondent has adduced the oral evidence and the photographs from which it is proved that respondent has sustained the loss of property for which the suit was filed. It is further submitted that no cross-examination has been made by the appellant in regard to the performance of marriage, ornaments and other relative things. Therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be argued that respondent has failed to prove the loss of Rs. 1,97,000/-. 12. From perusal of the record, it is evident that at the initial stage, a sum of Rs. 19,000/- was paid by the appellant. Thereafter, after a decade, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited by the appellant which has been withdrawn by the respondent as is evident from the order dated 6.10.1996. From perusal of the order dated 2.12.1997, it is clear that further a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited. Thus, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has already been paid by the appellant during pendency of the appeal. In the present case, no casualty has taken place on account of assassination of the then Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi. The loss of property was assessed by the appellant of Rs. 19,000/- and the same was paid also. 13. Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on a decision of Rajiv Gandhi v. Union of India reported in [AIR 1989 Vol. 76 Madras 205], where in a PIL on account of injuries sustained by Sikh Community on account of arson and looting in wake of assassination of Prima Minister Smt. Gandhi, Madras High Court observed that injured persons are entitled for a reasonable compensation. 76 Madras 205], where in a PIL on account of injuries sustained by Sikh Community on account of arson and looting in wake of assassination of Prima Minister Smt. Gandhi, Madras High Court observed that injured persons are entitled for a reasonable compensation. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Lata Rajendra Kankariya v. Union of India reported in [AIR 2005 Bombay 287], wherein on account of death due to firing from gun by military Jawan, High Court of Bombay observed that by giving gas agency to the father-in-law of the plaintiff or father of the deceased clearly shows that the State had admitted their liability in this matter. Giving gas agency in compensation is giving more than Rs. ten lakhs in cash because it is a permanent source of income and valuable asset. It was further observed that husband of the plaintiff died on 10.6.1994. Eleven years have passed from that date and plaintiff has not received a farthing from the respondents. Hence the Union of India was directed to pay a sum of Rs. ten lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum. 14. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record, it is apparent that respondent has failed to prove how he sustained the loss of Rs. 1,97,000/-. The best evidence which could have been available in all the odd situation was also not produced. However, on account of arson and fire, the respondent has suffered and at the beginning an amount of Rs. 19,000/- was paid to the respondent. During pendency of the appeal also, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has already been paid to the respondent. Thus, a sum of Rs. 99.000/- has been paid to the respondent. The respondent has failed to prove the looses as alleged in the plaint. However, since the respondent has already received a sum of Rs. 99,000/-, therefore, looking to the evidence, the respondent has already been compensated by the appellant. The amount which has already been paid by the State Government to the respondent is sufficient to compensate the respondent. In view of this, the appeal is allowed in part respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs. 99.000/- without any interest which has already been paid by the appellant. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.