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 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. 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 claiming compensation thereunder. This would indicate that the Act and Rules provide a specific remedy to claim compensation for loss and damage to property. [Para 11]
5. It is evident that s.7 clearly recognises the possibility of a civil suit instituted subsequent to the criminal proceedings under the Act, relating to the same matter, where if the Court trying the civil suit is awarding compensation, it is required to take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under Section 7 of the Act. It does not stand to reason that the Act would permit the subsequent filing of a civil suit while excluding the concurrent jurisdiction of the civil court. Moreover, even the summary remedy of claiming compensation envisaged under Section 10 of the Act, read with the Rules, does not preclude the filing of a suit for damages. Section 14 clearly provides that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law in force for the time being. It further mandates that nothing contained in the Act shall exempt any person from any proceeding by way of investigation or otherwise which might be instituted against him apart from under the Act. “Law” in force would include the common law, under which the tortious remedy of damages may be claimed, which remedy can only be pursued in a civil court. Thus, it is evident that the Act, by way of Section 14, clearly recognises the concurrent jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for damages. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is similar to Section 14 of the Act, which provides that the 1986 Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws in force. [Paras 13 and 14]
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India [2019] 8 SCC 416 ; State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society (2003)
2 SCC 412 : [2003] 1 SCR 397 ; Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651 : [1995]
5 Suppl. SCR 110 – relied on.
6. Section 14 of the Act, being in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of other laws in force, permits an aggrieved person to approach the civil court for relief if he so desires, instead of availing of the remedy envisaged under Section
10 of the Act. Clearly, a claim for compensation under the Act is only in the nature of an additional remedy which may be pursued in place of filing a civil suit for the same relief. [Para 14]
7. Moreover, it is clear that since a claim for compensation under Section 10 may only be determined by way of summary proceedings, it does not stand as a complete substitute to the remedies that may be pursued in a civil court and determined through a full-fledged trial, even though certain powers of the civil court are conferred upon the prescribed authority determining a claim for compensation under the Act. Thus, the Act does not stand in place of and preclude a claim for damages under the common law as may fall for determination before a civil court in a civil suit. The Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court either expressly or by necessary implication. [Paras 15 and 16]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.