Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a first appeal filed by the State of Gujarat and another against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006 passed by the learned City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.54 of 1992, whereby the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for damages of Rs.1,50,000 with interest. The plaintiff, an advocate by profession, owned a flat at Chandni Apartment, Naranpura, Ahmedabad. During the Diwali vacation in 1990, he and his family went to their native place at Viramgam. On 30th October 1990, communal riots erupted in Ahmedabad. On 31st October 1990 at around 10:30 pm, unknown miscreants broke into the plaintiff's flat, ransacked it, and set household materials on fire. The plaintiff's friend, Mr. Narendra Chowdhury, witnessed the incident and informed another friend, Mr. Dinesh Rathi, who visited the flat and found it damaged. Mr. Rathi called the police, but they did not respond. He then went to Naranpura police station to register a complaint, but PSI Mr. S.A. Panchal refused to register it. Later, after a call to the control room, PSI Panchal and a head constable visited the spot. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages of Rs.2 lacs against the State, alleging negligence and inaction by the police. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs.1,50,000. The State appealed. The High Court framed the issue of whether the State is vicariously liable for the acts of private miscreants. The court noted that the damage was caused by unknown persons, not by police officers. The police inaction, even if negligent, did not directly cause the loss. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove the value of the lost articles through proper evidence, as the original documents were not produced and secondary evidence was not admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The court held that the trial court's award was based on conjectures. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed.
Headnote
A) Tort Law - Vicarious Liability of State - Police Inaction - Section 17 Gujarat Police Act, 1951 - The State cannot be held vicariously liable for property damage caused by unknown private miscreants during communal riots merely because police officers refused to register a complaint. The court held that the police inaction, even if negligent, does not make the State liable for the acts of third parties in the absence of a direct nexus. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Proof of Documents - Section 65 Evidence Act, 1872 - Secondary evidence of documents is admissible only if the original is lost or destroyed and proper foundation is laid. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the loss of original documents and thus the secondary evidence was not admissible. (Paras 7-8) C) Damages - Assessment of Compensation - Property Loss - The plaintiff claimed Rs.2 lacs for damaged household articles but failed to produce credible evidence of the value of items lost. The court held that the trial court's award of Rs.1,50,000 was based on conjectures and not on legal evidence. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State is vicariously liable for damages caused by private miscreants during communal riots due to alleged police inaction in registering a complaint.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.54 of 1992 by the learned City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Cross Objection No.172 of 2009 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability of State
- Police inaction
- Damages for property loss
- Section 17 Gujarat Police Act
- 1951
- Section 65 Evidence Act
- 1872
