2023 SCMR 616
Tort --- Tort of interest in property --- Economic loss --- Proof and burden of proof --- Suit for damages arising out of an employment matter --- Jurisdiction of Civil Court to award decree for damages caused by mental agony and torture --- Respondent in his suit claimed that by virtue of litigation that had ensued between the parties , the appellant ( State Corporation ) had committed a tort of interest in property ; that he had to spend his financial resources as well as physical integrity insofar as he was subjected to face anxiety , mental stress of having to approach various legal fora , arrange legal representation and expend his limited financial resources for enforcement of his legitimate rights --- Held , that the main physical , perceivable and ostensible damages that the Respondent had arguably suffered was monetary / economic in nature --- Respondent could claim redressal from such a tort but in proving economic loss , the evidentiary burden of proof was on a claimant --- At the time of filing the suit the respondent had annexed and subsequently exhibited all documentary evidence including legal fees and certificates aggregating a sum of Rs.310,000 / - , therefore he successfully discharged the onus of proof on him --- During cross - examination of the respondent conducted by the appellant no suggestion had ever been made to the respondent that he had frivolously instituted the suit for damages ; that he had not suffered any loss due to actions of the appellant ; or that he had instituted the suit for damages as vendetta or to settle a personal grudge --- In the absence of such suggestions , it would be deemed that the appellants had admitted that the respondent had suffered loss due to the actions of the appellant --- Said findings had also been upheld by all the courts below --- Respondent had indeed suffered monetary / economic loss due to the actions of the appellant , that he had an actionable claim which he brought before the Trial Court in the form of a suit for recovery of damages , and that he was well within his rights to be compensated for such loss the relevant suffered Trial Court / Civil Court was well within jurisdiction to pass decree for payment of damages to the extent of Rs.310,000 / - , and a sum of Rs.2,000,000 / - in favour of the respondent for the mental agony and torture suffered by the respondent due to the actions of the appellant -- Appeal was dismissed .
Vicarious liability --- Corporation vicariously liable for the acts of its employees --- Employees of a Corporation not implementing orders of National Industrial Relations . Commission --- Factors to be considered by Courts when determining vicarious liability of the Corporation --- First consideration that the courts have to look at when deciding whether an entity / organization is vicariously liable for breaches in tort committed by its employees is whether or not a tortious breach has actually been committed in the first place --- Next consideration would be whether or not the tortious acts had been committed by an employee of an organisation during the course of his employment --- Final consideration would be whether it would be fair , just and reasonable to hold an organisation / entity vicariously liable for the actions of its employees during the course of their employment which resulted in tortious acts .
Vicarious liability --- Suit for damages for tortious liability against a State entity / Corporation --- Maintainability- .. Sovereign immunity --- Scope -- State Corporation cannot claim that it cannot be sued vicariously for the actions of its employees by invoking sovereign immunity --- Even otherwise , the defence of sovereign immunity and its application in Pakistan has been done away with by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan , Ministry of Railways and Communications , Karachi v . Muhammad A. Hayat ( PLD 1962 SC 28 )
0 Comments