'Wrong Done' U/S 19 CPC Includes Both Act & Its Effects: Kerala HC Says Local Court Authorised To Grant Relief To Mother Of Maid Who Died In Delhi
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Sub Court in Kerala has the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit for compensating for a wrong committed in Delhi, since as per the broader interpretation of "wrong done" under Section 19 of CPC, the effects of the wrong justified establishing jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff resided. Justice Basant Balaji observed that though the death...
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Sub Court in Kerala has the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit for compensating for a wrong committed in Delhi, since as per the broader interpretation of "wrong done" under Section 19 of CPC, the effects of the wrong justified establishing jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff resided.
Justice Basant Balaji observed that though the death of the woman took place within the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi, the effect of that death was felt by the appellant-mother in Kerala who lost her daughter and only earning member of their family.
“In a suit for compensation for wrong done, mere injury or wrong done without anything more would not suffice to sustain claim of compensation. The wrong done cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense but has to be understood in the broader amplitude. It takes in both the act and effect to put it differently, the death of the plaintiff's daughter might have happened in Delhi, but its effect is felt by the plaintiff within the local jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Nedumangad.”
Section 19 of CPC provides that the plaintiff can file suit for compensation for wrongs to a person or movables either within the jurisdiction of the Court where the wrong was committed or within the jurisdiction of the Court where the defendant resides, or carries business, or personally works for gain.
Background Facts
The deceased was the daughter of the appellant-mother who was the only earning member of their family. The appellant mother was a chronic heart patient and had no other means of earning a livelihood. The appellant also has a blind son.
The defendants took the appellant's daughter to Delhi in 2000 to work as a babysitter. In 2001, the defendants informed the appellant that their daughter died in Delhi due to blood cancer. The appellant doubted that her daughter was ill-treated by the defendants and committed suicide. The defendants then alleged that the appellant's daughter was found hanging at their house.
The appellant filed a suit for compensation shattered by the death of her daughter who was the only earning member of the family. The mother approached the Sub Court, Nedumangad under Section 19 CPC for a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 with interest from the defendants as she lost all her amenities, ambition, happiness and peace of mind in her life.
The Sub Judge returned the plaint for presenting it before the proper Court finding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellant mother challenged this order before the High Court.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was filed under Section 19 CPC. It was argued that a suit can be filed under Section 19 not only at the place where the wrong was done or the defendant resides but also at the place where the effect of the wrong was felt. It was thus submitted that even though the death of the daughter was in Delhi, the mother suffered the wrong within the local limits of the Sub Court in Nedumangad.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant had the option to file suit before two courts, jurisdiction of the Court where the wrong was committed or where the defendant resides, carries business, or personally works for gain. It was submitted that the appellant can file suit in the courts of New Delhi and not Sub-Court, Nedumangad.
The issue before the Court was to identify the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the wrong done has taken place. The Court also relied upon Ayyappan Pillai v. State Of Kerala & Anr (2002) to interpret the meaning of the term ‘wrong’ occurring in Section 19 of CPC. It observed that wrong done has to be interpreted in a broad manner to include the effect of the wrong done also.
The Court stated in a suit for compensation for wrong done, mere injury or wrong done without anything more would not suffice to sustain the claim of compensation. It stated that the death of the daughter took place in Delhi but the effect of that wrong was felt by the appellant mother in Kerala, thus the wrong done has to be interpreted in a broad sense and not in a narrow manner.
“I am of the considered opinion that the Sub-Court, Nedumangad, is having the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit since the wrong done has to be interpreted in the broader sense and the wrong done, as stated above, includes not only the act done in Delhi but also its the effect of the said wrong which gives a cause to the plaintiff to file the suit.”
On the above observations, the Court stated that the Sub Court in Nedumangad has the territorial jurisdiction to try the Suit.
Counsel for the appellant: Advocates V.Suresh and G.Sudheer
Counsel for the respondents: Advocates R.S.Kalkura, P.Anjana, R.Bindu, Harish Gopinath, M.S.Kalesh, P.M.Unni Namboodiri and Anantha Krishnan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
Case title: Naseema Beevi v Ameer Shahul @ Ameer P.S.
Case number: FAO NO. 331 OF 2011