LAWS(KER)-2013-4-89

GOVERMENT OF KERALA Vs. JOLLY SAIMON

Decided On April 10, 2013
Goverment Of Kerala Appellant
V/S
Jolly Saimon Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Soni Saimon a businessman, then 31 year old, was trapped to death during a night when his motorbike hit a speed barrier placed by the police across a National Highway without providing any night warning board or signals, purportedly as part of regulating the traffic. That barrier carried an advertisement of a private concern. Can a Welfare State be permitted to evade its vicarious liability by taking shelter under the doctrine of 'sovereign immunity' to resist the claim for compensation by the dependents of the deceased Soni's mother, widow and eleven months' old son sued the appellant, State of Kerala, for Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation and interest thereon. The second defendant is the father of the deceased.

(2.) Deceased Soni Saimon proceeded to Thrissur from Mundoor by riding his motorbike with P.W. 3 Sanjay, as pillion rider, by about 7.30 p.m. on 1-1-1998. At that time no speed barrier was seen placed across the road at Manappady near Peramanglam. By 10.15 p.m., while coming back through the said road, as and when they reached Manappady, all of a sudden the deceased could spot out a speed barrier placed across the road. As it was quiet unexpected, the deceased could not stop the motorbike, even though he tried his level best. The motorbike hit on the speed barrier, thereby the speed barrier and the motorbike were thrown to the road. The deceased who fell on the road, got his head forcibly hit on a piece of rubble lying near the speed barrier, and sustained fatal injuries. However, P.W. 3 escaped with minor injuries.

(3.) The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the next day while undergoing treatment at the West Fort, Hospital, Thrissur. The plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages. The court below has passed a decree allowing the plaintiffs to release an amount of Rs. 3,75,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, and hence the State is before us, as appellant.