Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of plots in Dabolim village, Goa, constructed a bungalow on the land. On 1st October 2002, a naval aircraft belonging to the respondents crashed onto their property, causing total destruction of the bungalow, compound wall, and land. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 75,00,000 with 18% interest. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the claim involved disputed questions of fact regarding negligence and quantum, and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating such claims where facts are disputed. The court noted that the petitioners could seek compensation by filing a civil suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners free to pursue their remedy in civil court. The court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Compensation for Tortious Act - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners sought compensation for destruction of bungalow due to crash of naval aircraft - Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding negligence and quantum cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings - Alternative remedy of civil suit is more appropriate - Held that writ petition is not maintainable for such claims (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can entertain a claim for compensation for damage caused by an aircraft crash where facts are disputed and an alternative remedy of civil suit exists.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to seek compensation by filing a civil suit. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction not for disputed questions of fact
- Alternative remedy of civil suit available
- No absolute right to compensation under Article 226
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 77
Writ Petition No. 311 of 2005
R. M. Lodha, N. A. Britto
Mr. M. S. Sonak for petitioners, Mr. E. P. Badrinarayan for respondents
Shri Thota Sayyed and Mrs. Shamshad Sayyed
The Flag Officer Commanding, Goa, INS Gomantak, Vasco da Gama, Goa and Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking compensation for property damage caused by aircraft crash
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay Rs. 75,00,000 with 18% interest for destruction of bungalow, compound wall and land
Filing Reason
Naval aircraft crashed onto petitioners' property on 1st October 2002 causing total destruction
Issues
Whether writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for compensation when facts are disputed and alternative remedy exists
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that respondents are liable to pay compensation for the destruction caused by the crash of their aircraft
Respondents contended that the claim involves disputed questions of fact and petitioners have alternative remedy of civil suit
Ratio Decidendi
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating claims for compensation where facts are disputed and an alternative remedy of civil suit is available. The court cannot decide disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or an order or direction in that nature, commanding the respondents to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.75,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st October, 2002 for the total destruction caused to the petitioners' bungalow, compound wall and the land due to the crash of the aircraft belonging to the respondents.
In our view, the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioners. The petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of civil suit. The facts are disputed. The writ court cannot decide disputed questions of fact.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 311 of 2005 in the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking compensation for damage caused by aircraft crash. Rule was issued and heard finally at the stage of admission.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
