Citation: FAO NO. 331 OF 2011
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
Decided on: 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2023
Introduction:
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 2004 on the files of the Sub- Judge, Nedumangad is the appellant and the respondents were the defendants therein, this suit filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with future interest at the rate of 18 % p.a from the defendants and their assets. The judgement is regarding which court having territorial jurisdiction to decide.
Facts:
The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Nisamol who passed away on 02.06.2001 in New Delhi at the residences of defendants, having no means of her own other than 4 cents of property and has small building thereon. plaintiff is a chronic heart patient cannot work to earn her livelihood. She has a son who is blind and invalid.
deceased Nisamol was the only earning member of the family. The family members of the deceased are the defendants in the case. Nisamol was taken to Delhi on 05.12.2000 as 2 of the defendants proposed to look after her because of extreme poverty of plantiff.
On 02.06.2001, the plaintiff that her daughter was ill and admitted to a hospital in Delhi. The plaintiff was taken to Delhi by Air on that day. Later the plaintiff was informed that Nisamol died due to blood cancer. body of Nisamol was taken back to the native place and buried at the graveyard.
The plaintiff suspected that the death of the daughter was due to the ill treatment of defendants, Though a notice was issued to the defendants to pay compensation, they were not amenable, so the suit was filed.
The defendant contended that Nisamol was taken as a maidservant to work as a babysitter for their one and half-year-old baby, on the representation of the plaintiff to take her as a domestic servant. The salary was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month, and the amount was being regularly sent by cheque to the bank of the plaintiff. plaintiff was told that Nisamol was having ailments of bleeding through her nose, and therefore, she was treated at AIIMS, New Delhi.
But on 02.06.2001 it was found that Nisamol was hanging. The matter was informed to the police, and postmortem examination was conducted by the Forensic Department of AIIMS and the dead body was taken back by Air, and the 1st defendant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1.5 Lakh for that. The Delhi Police submitted a report finding it as a suicide case.
The learned Sub Judge, after considering the oral testimony as well as the documents produced, concluded that, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the plaint was returned to present before the proper court. According to the counsel for the appellant, the suit can be filed for claiming compensation for the wrongs done to the person or the movable property not only at the place the wrongs was done on the defendant resides but at the place where the effect of the wrong is felt.
Court’s Judgement and Analysis:
The wrong done cannot be construed to mean only the act which was done and should also take in the effect of the act, 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. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that her family was solely relying on the income of the plaintiff’s daughter.
for the reason stated above and also relying on dictum laid by this Court in Ayyappan Pillai (Supra) . Court decided 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. Therefore the order passed by learned sub judge is set aside.
Sub Judge, Nedumangad is directed to try the suit, and therefore, the appellant is given liberty to present the plaint before the said court. Since, the suit is of the year 2004, there would be a further direction to the Sub Judge, Nedumangad, to dispose of the suit as far as possible and at any rate, within a period of four months
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma
