State Vicariously Liable For Inaction: Madras HC Upholds Compensation To Man Injured During Protests Following Late Karunanidhi's Arrest In 2001

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held the State responsible along with the political party that had called for the bandh. The court observed that the State was vicariously liable for its inaction during the situation and not taking proper care of the law-and-order situation.

“The State had failed to provide for necessary protection though was well aware of the untoward incidents taking place. The learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects in the correct perspective. Apart from providing security to the citizens, it is also the duty of the State to maintain law and order. The State would be vicariously liable for its inaction and/or not taking proper care,” the court observed.

The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the state against a single-judge order granting a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh to the respondent Krishnaswamy. Krishnaswamy, who was working in the Vysya Bank Limited as an ALPM Operator had suffered injuries when some miscreants threw stones at the bus in which he was travelling on July 1^st, 2001.

Krishnaswamy had suffered 40% permanent disability with his left eye being removed and a dummy eye being fixed. He had thus sought compensation of Rs. 25 Lakh for medical expenses incurred, pains and sufferings, and for hospitalization.

The State had challenged the liability imposed and submitted that the call for bandh was for the 2^nd of July and the state could be made liable only if some untoward incident took place on the date of the bandh. Thus, the state argued that it could not be made liable for the injuries suffered before the date of the bandh and thus could not be saddled with the responsibility of paying compensation.

The court noted that the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had admitted that there were untoward incidents obstructing the operation of vehicles and causing damage to the vehicles on 30^th June, 1^st July and 2^nd July 2001. The court thus opined that when the respondent authorities had already witnessed untoward incidents happening on the 30^th June, they could have taken necessary precautions for the following days.

“The State would be liable along with the political party in question who had called for the Bandh. The said political party was not arrayed as a respondent, however, that would not make much difference. The State under any circumstances would be liable to pay the compensation amount,” the court said.

The court thus opined that the single judge had rightly invoked the concept of strict liability and vicarious liability as the State was liable to pay compensation under any circumstances.

Thus, finding the appeal bereft of materials, the court dismissed the plea and directed the State to compensate the man within a period of 6 weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Kumaresan Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.T.M.Hariharan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 38

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v S Krishnaswamy

Case No: WA No.661 of 2021

Click here to read/download the judgment