Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 October 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1132
Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a person who has suffered property damage due to another’s actions seek compensation through a civil court, or are they limited to remedies under the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case. The Court clarified that the Act does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts, allowing individuals to pursue damages through civil suits. This judgment ensures that people have multiple avenues for seeking justice when their property is damaged. The bench comprised of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The appellant, M. Hariharasudhan, owned a hotel in Madurai. In 2014, he began construction on a plot of land next to his father’s property. His father had filed a suit against R. Karmegam (Respondent No. 1) for obstructing access to his property. Despite a court order to maintain the status quo, Respondent No. 1 completed construction. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 and others damaged the appellant’s construction materials, pelted stones at the hotel’s showcase glass, drove a car into the hotel’s automatic door, and trespassed into the hotel, stealing cash and causing injuries to employees. This led to the appellant incurring costs for repairs, medical expenses, and loss of cash.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellant, awarding damages of Rs. 18,28,941 with interest. The High Court, however, reversed this decision on appeal, holding that the suit was not maintainable. The High Court reasoned that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, provided a specific mechanism for claiming compensation, thus implicitly barring civil court jurisdiction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, and whether it bars the jurisdiction of civil courts. Key provisions include:

• Section 7 of the Act: This section allows a court, when imposing a fine for an offense under the Act, to order that the fine be used to compensate the victim for loss or injury caused by the offense. It also allows the court to order compensation even when the sentence does not include a fine. Sub-section (4) states, “At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.”
• Section 10 of the Act: This section allows individuals affected by damage or loss to property to claim compensation.
• Section 11 of the Act: This section specifies that claims for compensation for damage or loss to property should be made to the prescribed authority. It also grants the authority certain powers of a civil court.
• Section 14 of the Act: This is a savings provision, stating, “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force and nothing contained herein shall exempt any person from any proceeding by way of investigation or otherwise which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against him.”

The Act was initially enacted to address damage to public property but was later amended to include private property as well. The rules framed under the Act, however, do not fully reflect this amendment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that Section 7(4) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, recognizes the possibility of a civil suit for compensation, thus implying that civil courts have jurisdiction. They contended that the scheme of Section 7 is similar to Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows for compensation by criminal courts but also acknowledges the possibility of a subsequent civil suit.
• The appellant also argued that Section 14 of the Act, which saves proceedings instituted outside of the Act, indicates that the jurisdiction of civil courts is also saved. They relied on the principle that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred, citing the decision in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1968 (3) SCR 662.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents contended that the Act and Rules form a self-contained code that excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts by necessary implication. They argued that the Rules create a specific authority for determining and paying compensation, and thus, the decision in Dhulabhai (supra) applies. They also argued that if civil courts were allowed to award compensation, the scheme of the Act and Rules would become redundant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the suit for damages filed by the Appellant is maintainable in light of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, which depends on whether the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court reasoned that:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1968 (3) SCR 662:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred unless the conditions set down are met.
• Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court used this provision to show that the scheme of Section 7 of the Act is similar and does not exclude the possibility of a subsequent civil suit.
• Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The Court used this provision to show that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws, allowing for concurrent remedies.
• Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 43/2019, decided on 09.08.2019):* The Court used this case to support the idea that remedies under various statutes can be concurrent.
• State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412:* The Court used this case to explain that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not supplant the jurisdiction of civil courts.
• Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651:* The Court used this case to show that consumer fora are not the only remedy and civil courts can also be approached.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Interpretation of Section 7(4): The Court noted that Section 7(4) of the Act explicitly acknowledges the possibility of a subsequent civil suit, indicating that the Act does not intend to exclude civil court jurisdiction.
• Savings Clause in Section 14: The Court emphasized that Section 14 of the Act clearly states that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law in force, which includes the common law remedy of damages.
• Nature of Remedies: The Court observed that while the Act provides a summary procedure for claiming compensation, this is not a complete substitute for a full-fledged civil trial.
• Principle Against Ouster of Civil Court Jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred, citing the principles laid down in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1968 (3) SCR 662.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases of property damage.
• Individuals can seek compensation for property damage through both the mechanisms provided under the Act and through civil suits.
• The Act provides an additional remedy, but it does not supplant the common law right to seek damages in a civil court.
• The judgment ensures that people have multiple avenues for seeking justice when their property is damaged.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide the first appeal on merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, does not exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts either expressly or by necessary implication. This clarifies that individuals have the option to pursue civil suits for damages, in addition to the remedies provided under the Act. This decision reaffirms the principle that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred and provides clarity on the concurrent jurisdiction of civil courts in property damage cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam clarifies that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts. This ruling ensures that individuals have the option to seek compensation for property damage through civil suits, in addition to the remedies provided under the Act. The Court emphasized that the Act’s provisions are supplementary and do not supplant the common law right to seek damages in a civil court.