M. HARIHARASUDHAN versus R. KARMEGAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 17-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
M. HARIHARASUDHAN
v.
R. KARMEGAM AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8069 of 2019)
OCTOBER 17, 2019
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)
Act, 1992:
ss. 7, 10 and 14  – Whether the Act excludes the jurisdiction
of civil court – High Court by impugned order held that though
there is no express bar on civil jurisdiction, but since the Act and
the Rules framed thereunder provide a particular method of claiming
compensation for damages to the property, all other methods for
claiming compensation were excluded by implication – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: A claim for compensation under the Act is
only in the nature of an additional remedy – It is evident from the
provisions of the Act that it does not oust the jurisdiction of civil
court either expressly or by necessary implication – s.14 recognizes
the concurrent jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for
damages – Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)
Act, 1992 – Jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The question of ouster of the jurisdiction of the
civil court by specially constituted tribunals, not to be readily
inferred unless the conditions as under are satisfied.  Where the
statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the
civil courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is
adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in
a suit. Where there is no express exclusion, the examination of
the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the
intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may
be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute
creates a special right or a liability and provides for the
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 442
442
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
determination of the right or liability and further lays down that
all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined
by the Tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally
associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said
statute or not. [Para 6] [448-E-G; 449-B-C]
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968] 3 SCR
662 – followed.
2. Additionally, it is important to note that the Tamil Nadu
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, which was enacted
in 1992, initially only pertained to damage and loss caused to
public property. The Act was amended vide the Tamil Nadu Public
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1994, which was
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary
on 09.08.1994, to provide compensation in respect of property
other than public property as well. The Rules framed under the
Act came into force on 09.04.1994, that is to say, prior to the
amendment of the Act. Though certain amendments were
subsequently made to the Rules, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Home
(Court IV) dated 24.10.1994, it appears that the State Government
has committed an oversight in amending the Rules, and has failed
to provide any procedure for the claiming and assessment of
damages with respect to property other than public property. A
bare reading of the Rules in their entirety thus makes it clear
that the State Government has committed an oversight in
amending the Rules appropriately to bring them in consonance
with the amended enactment, and to facilitate the appropriate
enforcement of the same. [Para 9] [453-B-D, G]
3. Even if it is assumed that the Rules broadly provide a
procedure to claim compensation for damage or loss to public as
well as private property, the scheme of the Act does not envisage
ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court. [Para 10] [453-H; 454-A]
4. Reading the Rules expansively, not literally, it is evident
that the Act, along with the Rules, provides for the award of
compensation in two ways. Firstly, it may be awarded at the end
of the trial for any offence punishable under the Act, or may be
ordered to be paid out of the fine imposed upon the accused.
M. HARIHARASUDHAN v. R. KARMEGAM AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
This is similar to the power of the criminal court to award
compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly,
compensation may be awarded upon an application as envisaged
under Section 10, after a summary inquiry as envisaged under
the Rules. This is somewhat similar to the summary procedure
envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for cla

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.