tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753026395139707227.post3788357019928545404..comments2024-01-10T10:07:29.412+05:30Comments on Law-in-Perspective: Municipal Corporation remains vicariously liable for acts of contractors: High CourtUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753026395139707227.post-10194231732187167302010-12-21T20:42:51.535+05:302010-12-21T20:42:51.535+05:30Dear Diwakar,
Thanks for the nice words.
As for...Dear Diwakar,<br /><br />Thanks for the nice words. <br /><br />As for the decision, your observation is right that the High Court thought fit to invoke the Master-Servant decision in the context of MCD. However what also needs to be appreciated is the fact that we are not dealing with an ordinary case of vicarious liability as which the tort law deals. The law has come far after the decision of Chandrima Das of 2000 wherein the Supreme Court granted compensation to a victim of rape where the compensation was made payable by the State because the rape was by a railway employee. So the Supreme Court has introduced vicarious liability concept even in criminal law.<br /><br />In my view the essence seems to be due to the involvement of public element wherein the victim should not be left without an effective remedy. This perhaps explains the reason for exercising power under writ jurisdiction whereas it could also have been relegated to a civil court to try as a case for negligence. <br /><br />So much so, as we are not permitted to read the mind of the judges except to make out from the words used in the decision. In any case, the law has taken a tidal shift from the earlier restrictive approach of courts on executive action.<br /><br />Hope that brings the issue in better perspective.<br /><br />Thanks for the comments though. It serves a reminder that people actually read and appreciate our posts.<br /><br />TarunTarun Jainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011672832281826827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753026395139707227.post-41312189305092902462010-12-21T16:00:44.522+05:302010-12-21T16:00:44.522+05:30Dear Tarun,
Hi.
I am a Law Student studying at N...Dear Tarun,<br /><br />Hi.<br /><br />I am a Law Student studying at NLS, Bangalore and follow this blog religiously. I would like to tell you that you are doing a great job.<br /><br />In the MCD post, you have quoted a lot of judgments on "Master-Servant" Relationship. My little knowledge of law tells me that the same should not be applicable in this case. MCD being held liable because the "Contractor" was negligent, cannot and should not come under the 'Master-Servant Relationship' ambit as the basic foundation of the two relationships are different. In Master-Servant Relationship, master is held liable, mainly because Servant is not in a position to pay compensate, the same cannot be held true, especially in this case with a 'Contractor' in the picture. <br /><br />I believe MCD can and should be held liable for its own failure to act, but not because the 'Contractor' was negligent.<br /><br />Just a thought.<br /><br />Best,<br />DiwakarDiwakarnoreply@blogger.com