Delhi District Court
T.J. Baby Ors vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. Ors on 27 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 02
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET: NEW DELHI
CS No. 207607/2016
CNR No. DLSE01-001100-2014
1. T.J. Baby
Thaiparambil House, Velimanam Post,
Payam Via, Iritty, Athickal,
Kannur, Kerala-670704.
2. Mary Baby
Thaiparambil House, Velimanam Post,
Payam Via, Iritty, Athickal,
Kannur, Kerala-670704.
3. Subhash T.B. S/o T.J. Baby
Thaiparambil House, Velimanam Post,
Payam Via, Iritty, Athickal,
Kannur, Kerala-670704.
4. Joshi T.B. S/o T.J. Baby
Thaiparambil House, Velimanam Post,
Payam Via, Iritty, Athickal,
Kannur, Kerala-670704.
5. Johnson T.B. S/o T.J. Baby
Thaiparambil House, Velimanam Post,
Payam Via, Iritty, Athickal,
Kannur, Kerala-670704.
............. Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Muthoot Finance Limited
Represented by its Managing Director
Muthoot Towers, Alakananda,
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 1/41
Digitally signed
KULDEEP by KULDEEP
NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27
14:55:17 +0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
New Delhi-110019.
2. M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director
C-83, Block-C, Duggal Colony,
Khanpur, New Delhi-110063.
3. Mr. M.G. George Muthoot
Director, Muthoot Finance Limited
Muthoot Towers, Alakananda,
New Delhi-110019.
4. Mr. Alexander George Muthoot
Managing Director, Muthoot Finance Limited,
Muthoot Towers, Alakananda,
New Delhi-110019.
5. M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services
Through its Proprietor/Director/Manager,
C-09, 1st Floor, Duggal Colony,
Khanpur, New Delhi-110063.
............ Defendants
Date of Institution : 26.08.2014
Date of reserving Judgment : 18.04.2026
Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION &
DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs filed the present suit on 26.08.2014 for recovery of Rs.19,99,990/- as compensation and damages alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 2/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:55:31 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Pleadings:
2. Facts as per the plaint are that the defendants no.1 and 2 are private limited companies; that the defendants are permanently residing or working for gain or their offices are situated at the addresses shown in the cause title; that the plaintiffs tried their best to find the actual defendants; that the plaintiffs are incorporating the present defendants in the instant suit who are liable to the damages as per their knowledge; that the defendants no.1, 2 and 5 are officially and vicariously liable for the injuries and consequential damages of the plaintiff and defendants no.3 and 4 are individually, vicariously and altogether directly liable to the injuries of the plaintiffs; that the deceased Jomesh was the son of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and brother of plaintiffs no.3 to 5; that the deceased Jomesh was the Accountant Assistant in the Govindpuri branch of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd.; that one Vishram Singh, who was under the employment of M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. was the Security Officer of the said branch of Govindpuri of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd; that defendant no.2 M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. is a security company providing armed security guards for the security of its clients; that M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. entered into a service contract for providing number of well trained and fit licensed armed security guards for the security of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd.; that said Vishram Singh was employed by M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. and extended their service to CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 3/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:55:47 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket the Govindpuri branch of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. and he was the Security Officer of the said branch on 01.09.2011 and he was armed with a gun when he was on duty; that on 01.09.2011, on the fateful day at around 07.45 p.m., Vishram Singh indiscriminately opened fire against the staff of the branch during the course of his employment while carrying out his role as a security guard and as In-Charge of the security of the deceased Jomesh and responsible for his care and murdered three employees of defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. including the deceased Jomesh, who was 23 years of age at the time of his death; that deceased Jomesh was totally within the control and subject to the care of Vishram Singh, the defendants' said servant or agent, the staff at the branch; that the manager of M/s.
Muthoot Finance Ltd. laid information to the police about the incident and FIR No.303/2011 under Section 302/307 IPC was accordingly registered at P.S. Kalkaji which is a part of the record; that it was revealed during the investigation that late Vishram Singh had secured gun license to use the offending weapon/gun from the licensing authority, Etah, U.P. and the said gun license was valid only for Uttar Pradesh. He could not have used the gun in Delhi area; that M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. and its directors or officers or persons who were in-charge of or were responsible for the conduct of the business, had knowingly permitted late Vishram Singh to use the said gun; that M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. and its directors or officers or persons in-charge who were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company had knowingly consented CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 4/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:55:57 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket and permitted late Vishram Singh to possess and use the gun in their office premisses illegally; that M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. and its directors or officers or persons who were in-charge or were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company had not taken adequate precautions to the life of the victims in the incident including deceased Jomesh; that all the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injuries of the plaintiffs caused by their negligence and intentional torts; that the defendants are guilty of gross negligence in discharging their duty towards deceased Jomesh; that the defendants breached the applicable standards care as the defendants had a duty of care towards the deceased Jomesh during the course of his employment; that the duty of care was to take all reasonable steps to safeguards the staffs including deceased Jomesh in his physical safety while at the office; that in carrying out that duty of care the defendants necessarily had to take appropriate caution and care; that the defendant did not examine the mental ability of the security guard namely late Vishram Singh before his appointment; that the defendants did not examine the antecedence of the said security guard before his employment; that the defendants were negligent in their care, selection and control of the security guard; that all the defendants are liable for negligence for the untimely death of deceased Jomesh; that the defendants are also vicariously liable for the intentional tort committed by late Vishram Singh and consequent untimely death of deceased Jomesh; that each defendant is individually liable for the tort committed by the security guard since defendants knowingly or negligently CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 5/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:56:07 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket permitted late Vishram Singh to use the gun which was originally permitted to use in Uttar Pradesh and not in Delhi; that the said deceased Jomesh was a B.Com degree holder and drawing an average salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and he would have a lucrative career of 40 years with the abovesaid salary which may be calculated as Rs.72,00,000/- and is entitled from the defendants as damages due to the loss of dependency; that due to the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiffs suffered mental and physical shock when they knew that Jomesh was murdered; that the plaintiffs assess the damages for mental and physical shock, mental agony, physical inconvenience, loss of consortium, love and affection at the rate of Rs.13,50,000/- for each plaintiff and are entitled from the defendants; that the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. unilaterally decided to help plaintiff no.1 by depositing Rs.6,00,000/- by creating a Fixed Deposit Account in one of the branches of the opposite party company; that the plaintiff had withdrawn the said amount from the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd; that the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- cannot be treated as part of the damages/compensation, but a solatium paid by the defendants for an interim relief; that, however, the plaintiffs deduct the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the total damages claimed by the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation for the loss and damage caused by the defendants which may be more than Rs.1,33,50,000/-; that the plaintiffs are not in a position to file the present suit for that amount due to their financial difficulty to pay the sufficient Court Fees in the suit and therefore, the plaintiffs CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 6/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:56:19 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket are claiming a decree of Rs.19,99,500/- as damages/compensation from the defendants by way of the present suit; that the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 27.12.2013 to the defendants; that the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. neither responded to the said legal notice nor paid the amount demanded therein; that thereafter the plaintiffs again sent a legal notice dated 17.01.2014, but the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. did not respond to the said legal notice also; that the defendant M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. by a reply dated 18.01.2014 claimed that late Vishram Singh was an employee of defendant M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and they have no responsibility towards the incident; that therefore M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services was incorporated as defendant in the present suit; that the Court is requested to treat M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services as actual defendant in case it is found that they are the actual defendant in the suit other than M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd.; that therefore it is requested to decide the liability of each defendant in the subject matter of the suit, hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for recovery of money against the defendants.
3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements. The defendants no.1, 3 and 4, while taking preliminary objections stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either on facts or in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs have not come before the Court CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 7/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:56:30 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the Court; that the suit is without any cause of action against the answering defendants and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed; that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of proper parties and defendants no.1, 3 and 4 have been wrongly arrayed as defendants in the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed; that the defendants no.3 and 4 have no personal liability under law as has been claimed in the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed; that the unfortunate death of Mr. Jomesh cannot be attributed to any act, omission or conduct on the part of the defendants and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In reply on merits, it is stated that the para no.10 of the plaint is correct that on the complaint/first information of the manager/employee of the defendant no.1 company, the referred FIR was registered and the contents of the said FIR are a matter of record but the alleged facts projected by the plaintiffs as being part of the said FIR, are not correct in toto. Rest of the averments were denied by the defendants no.1, 3 and 4.
4. Defendant no.2 has also filed its written statement while taking preliminary objections that the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that no cause of action ever arose against the defendant no.2; that the suit of the plaintiff is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that defendant no.2 has never given his services to the defendant no.1 and it was M/s. Sky Force Security Services & Alliance Services, who has given service to defendant no.1 but said services were finished much CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 8/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:56:41 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket before the incident and on 01.09.2011, neither M/s. Sky Force Security Services & Alliance Services nor the answering defendant were having any concern with the defendant no.1 or with Mr. Vishram Singh; that M/s. Sky Force Security Services & Alliance Services was dissolved on 31.07.2010 and on the date and time of incident, defendant no.5 was providing services to the defendant no.1 and the answering defendant has no concern with defendant no.5 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the part of the answering defendant; that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have not come before the Court with clean hands and have concealed the material facts. In para-wise reply, all the contents of plaint were denied.
5. Defendant no.5 also filed its written statement while taking preliminary objections that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose against the defendant no.5; that the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have not come before the Court with clean hands and have concealed the material facts from the Court; that the present suit is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that the same is misuse of law. In para-wise reply, all the contents of plaint were denied.
Issues:
6. Vide order dated 24.09.2015, as per pleadings of parties, following issues were framed :
i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad on CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 9/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:56:54 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket account of mis-joinder of parties especially defendants no.3 and 4? OPD ii. Whether defendant no.2 had never given its services to defendant no.1? OPD-2 iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.19,99,500/-? OPP iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente- lite and future interest @ 18% per annum or any other rate and for what period? OPP v. Relief.
7. During proceedings of the case, the defendant no.3 died and therefore, vide order dated 26.05.2022, the suit qua defendant no.3 was abated.
Plaintiff's Evidence:
Examination-in-Chief (PW-1):-
8. Plaintiffs got examined Sh. Joshi T.B. as PW-1 who deposed by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon documents i.e. copy of death certificate Mark A; copy of post- mortem report dated 02.09.2011 Ex.PW-1/2; copy of FIR dated 02.09.2011 Ex.PW-1/3; copy of legal notice dated 27.12.2013 with postal receipts Ex.PW-1/4 (colly 2 pages); copy of legal notice dated 17.01.2014 sent through e-mail Ex.PW-1/5 (colly 2 pages); copy of reply dated 18.01.2014 Ex.PW-1/6; original ration card Ex.PW-1/7 (colly pages 20); and certified copy of final report of IO in FIR No.303/11 Ex.PW-8.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 10/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:57:05 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
9. PW-1 deposed on the lines of the plaint of the suit. He further deposed that the defendants no.1, 2 and 5 are officially and vicariously liable for the injuries and consequential damages to the plaintiffs and defendants no.3 and 4 are individually, vicariously and directly liable for the injuries of the plaintiffs. PW-1 further deposed that the deceased Jomesh was the son of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and brother of plaintiffs no.3 to 5 who was the Accountant Assistant in the Govindpuri branch of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd., where one Vishram Singh, who was under
the employment of M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. was the Security Officer of the said branch of Govindpuri of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. PW-1 further deposed that defendant no.2 M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. is a security company providing armed security guards for the security of its clients. He further deposed that M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. entered into a service contract for providing number of well trained and fit licensed armed security guards for the security of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd.
10. PW-1 further deposed that late Vishram Singh was employed by M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. and extended their service to the Govindpuri branch of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. and he was the Security Officer of the said branch on 01.09.2011. He was armed with a gun when he was on duty on 01.09.2011, and on the fateful day at around 07.45 p.m., Vishram Singh indiscriminately opened fire against the staff of CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 11/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:57:23 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket the branch during the course of his employment while carrying out his role as a security guard being In-charge of the security of the deceased Jomesh and responsible for his care and murdered three employees of defendant i.e. M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. including the deceased Jomesh, son of plaintiff no.1. Further, deceased Jomesh was 23 years of age at the time of his death. PW-1 further deposed that deceased Jomesh was totally within the control and subject to the care of Vishram Singh, the defendants' said servant or agent, the staff at the branch. He relied upon death certificate dated 14.11.2011 Ex.PW-1/1 and post-mortem report dated 02.09.2011 Ex.PW-1/2.
11. PW-1 further deposed that the manager of M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. laid information to the police about the incident and FIR No.303/2011 under Section 302/307 IPC Ex.PW-1/3 was accordingly registered at P.S. Kalkaji which is a part of the record. It was revealed during the investigation that late Vishram Singh secured gun license to use the offending weapon/gun from the licensing authority, Etah, U.P. and the said gun license was valid only for Uttar Pradesh and he could not have used the gun in Delhi area. He further deposed that M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. and its directors or officers or persons who were In-charge of or were responsible for the conduct of the business of the same had knowingly permitted late Vishram Singh to use the said gun. They permitted late Vishram Singh to possess and use the gun in their office premisses illegally and had not taken adequate precautions to the life of the victims in the CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 12/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:57:35 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket incident including deceased Jomesh. PW-1 further deposed that all the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injuries of the plaintiffs caused by their negligence and intentional torts and the defendants are guilty of gross negligence in discharging their duty towards deceased Jomesh. He further deposed that the defendants breached the applicable standards care as the defendants had a duty of care towards the deceased Jomesh during the course of his employment. PW-1 further deposed that the defendants necessarily had to take appropriate caution and care but they did not examine the mental ability of the security guard namely late Vishram Singh before his appointment and did not examine the antecedence of the said security guard before his employment and therefore, all the defendants are liable for negligence for the untimely death of deceased Jomesh because they knowingly or negligently permitted late Vishram Singh to use the gun which was originally permitted for use in Uttar Pradesh and not in Delhi.
12. PW-1 further deposed that the deceased Jomesh was a B.Com degree holder and was drawing an average salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and he would have a lucrative career of 40 years with the above said salary which may be calculated as Rs.72,00,000/- and is entitled from the defendants as damages due to loss of dependency. Due to the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiffs suffered mental and physical shock when they knew that Jomesh was murdered. He further deposed that the plaintiffs assess the damages for mental and physical CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 13/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:57:47 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket shock, mental agony, physical inconvenience, loss of consortium, love and affection at the rate of Rs.13,50,000/- for each plaintiff. The defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. unilaterally decided to help the plaintiff no.1 by depositing Rs.6,00,000/- by creating a Fixed Deposit Account in one of the branches of the opposite party company and plaintiff had withdrawn the said amount from the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. He further deposed that the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- cannot be treated as part of the damages/compensation, but a solatium paid by the defendants for an interim relief. He further deposed that the plaintiffs deducted the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the total damages claimed by the plaintiffs. He further deposed that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation for the loss and damage caused by the defendants which may come more than Rs.1,33,50,000/- but the plaintiffs are not in a position to file the present suit for that amount due to their financial difficulty to pay the sufficient Court Fees in the suit and therefore, the plaintiffs are claiming a decree of Rs.19,99,500/- as damages/compensation from the defendants by way of the present suit.
13. PW-1 further deposed that the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 27.12.2013 Ex.PW-1/4 to the defendants, but the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. neither responded to the said legal notice nor paid the amount demanded therein. He further deposed that thereafter the plaintiffs again sent a legal notice dated 17.01.2014 Ex.PW-1/5, but the defendant M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. did not respond to the said legal notice also. He further CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 14/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:57:58 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket deposed that defendant no.2 namely M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd. by a reply dated 18.01.2014 Ex.PW-1/6 claimed that late Vishram Singh was an employee of defendant M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and they have no responsibility towards the incident. He further deposed that therefore, M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services was incorporated as defendant in the present suit. PW-1 further deposed that he placed on record the certified copy of ration card issued by Civil Supplies Authority Ex.PW-1/7 and certified copy of Final Report filed by IO in the FIR No.303/2011 of PS Kalkaji under Section 302/307 IPC Ex.PW-1/8.
Cross-Examination (PW-1):-
14. PW-1 was cross-examined by learned counsels for defendants. During his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that Sh.
Jomesh was his brother. He never complained about defendant no.1 or its management. He further stated that Sh. Vishram Singh was an employee of defendant no.5. He voluntarily stated that he was also an employee of defendant no.1. PW-1 was confronted with his evidence affidavit, wherein in para no.5 he stated that Sh. Vishram Singh was under the employment of M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Pvt. Ltd.
15. On further cross-examination, PW-1 stated that Sh. Vishram Singh was an employee of defendant no.5 and was working as security guard in the Govindpuri Branch of defendant no.1. PW-1 further stated that on 01.09.2011, Sh. Vishram Singh CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 15/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:58:08 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket indiscriminately opened fire with his licensed gun and killed three people inside the branch office including his brother Sh. Jomesh. He also injured one girl and then shot himself dead. PW-1 further stated that there was no animosity between Sh. Vishram Singh and his brother Sh. Jomesh. He denied that defendant no.1 had taken all due precautions for the safety of its employees or that the defendant no.1 had carried out all requisite verifications. PW-1 showed ignorance if it was the responsibility of defendant no.5 to provide fit, duly licensed and mentally stable security guards.
16. On further cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the Management of defendant no.1 had paid a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs to the family of deceased Jomesh on humanitarian grounds and had also borne expenses towards the ambulance charge of Rs.29,989/- and a sum of Rs.32,800/- towards air ticket expenses pertaining to the body of deceased Jomesh. He further admitted that the defendant no.1, for the benefit of its employees had availed an Accidental Death Benefit under the Group Personnel Accident Policy 2011-12 though he voluntarily stated that the premium of the said policy was deducted from the salary of the employees. He was not having any document to show in this regard. He further admitted that a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs was received by his father towards the said Accidental Death Benefit vide receipt Ex.PW-1/D1. All other suggestions were denied by him.
17. PW-1 was also cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant no.2, during which he stated that he came to know CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 16/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:58:20 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket through FIR only that Sh. Vishram Singh was employee of defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 had replied his legal notice informing that Sh. Vishram Singh was the employee of defendant no.5. All other suggestions were denied by him.
18. PW-1 was also cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant no.5. However, no substantial point could be extracted out.
19. Vide order dated 01.10.2022, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Defendants' Evidence:
20. Thereafter, defendants led evidence and got examined three witnesses i.e. (i) Sh. Sunil Barthwal as DW-1; (ii) Sh. Naseer Khan as D2W1; and (iii) Sh. Santosh Chand Mishra as DW-5.
Examination-in-Chief (DW-1):-
21. Sh. Sunil Barthwal (DW-1) deposed by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon documents i.e. copy of Board Resolution & Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2015 Ex.DW-1/1 & Ex.DW-1/2; copy of Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2021 Ex.DW-1/3; certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation certified by the C.S. of defendant no.1 Ex.DW-1/4; copy of Agreement dated 27.07.2011 Ex.DW-1/5; copy of Registration Certificate dated 18.03.2011 Ex.DW-1/6; copy of Debenture Certificate Mark DW-1/7; copy of Claim Form Mark DW-1/8; and copy of Letter dated 16.05.2012 Mark DW-1/9. CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 17/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:58:33 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
22. DW-1 deposed that he is one of the officers/authorized representative of defendant no.1 vide Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2025 Ex.DW-1/1 executed in pursuance of Resolution dated 22.09.2005 Ex.DW-1/2 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant no.1 company and he is authorized to adduce evidence and depose on behalf of the defendant no.1. DW-1 further deposed that a similar power of Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2021 Ex.DW-1/3 was executed inter-alia in his favour by the defendant no.1.
23. DW-1 further deposed that the defendant no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 vide Certificate of Incorporation Ex.DW-1/4. He further deposed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either on facts or in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs have not come before the Court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts from the Court. He further deposed that the suit is without any cause of action as against defendants no.1, 3 and 4 and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed. He further deposed that the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 have no liability whatsoever towards the plaintiffs. He further deposed that the defendant no.1 has no official, vicarious or other liability whatsoever qua the plaintiffs and defendants no.3 and 4 also have no liability whatsoever, either individually, vicariously or otherwise towards the plaintiffs. He further deposed that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of proper parties and the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 have been wrongly impleaded as defendants by the CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 18/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:58:43 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket plaintiffs.
24. DW-1 further deposed that Mr. Vishram Singh was the Security Officer deployed at the Govindpuri Branch of defendant no.1 company who was an employee of defendant no.2. He further deposed that defendant no.5 formerly known as defendant no.2 is an entity engaged in the business of providing security services and pursuant to the specific representations made by the defendant no.5 through its proprietor/authorized partner namely Mr. Santosh Chand Mishra, the defendant no.1 company had agreed to avail security services from the said defendant no.5 vide an Agreement dated 27.07.2011 Ex.DW-1/5.
25. DW-1 further deposed that M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services i.e. defendant no.5 was duly registered as a commercial establishment under Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 on 18.03.2011 vide registration certificate Ex.DW-1.6. He further deposed that the said Mr. Vishram Singh was deployed by the defendant no.5 as an armed security guard at the Govindpuri, New Delhi branch office of defendant no.1 and during the course of his deployment at the said branch on 01.09.2011, the said Vishram Singh who was carrying a licensed .315 rifle, started indiscriminate firing within the branch premises as a result of which, three staff members of the defendant no.1 namely Mr. Krishna Kumar S., Mr. Jomesh T.B. and Ms. Anumol EV succumbed to bullet injuries and another staff namely Ms. Nidhi Ghai suffered grievous injuries. He further deposed that after killing and injuring the said staff members, the CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 19/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:58:57 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket said armed guard even killed himself at the spot by firing bullet from his rifle on his own temple. He further deposed that Mr. Vishram Singh was neither the servant nor the agent of defendant no.1. He further deposed that on the complaint/first information of the manager/employee of defendant no.1, an FIR bearing No.303/2011, P.S. Kalkaji, U/Sec.302/307 IPC was registered.
26. DW-1 further deposed that Mr. Vishram Singh's gun license authorized him to use the weapon/gun only within the State of Uttar Pradesh. He further denied that the defendant no.1 or its directors, officers, persons incharge of/responsible for the conduct of the business of the defendant no.1 company had knowingly consented or permitted late Vishram Singh to either possess or use any gun in the office premises of defendant no.1. He further stated that they had taken adequate precautions with respect to the life of its staff members. He further deposed that as per Clause 4 of the agreement dated 27.07.2011 executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5, it was provided that the "Security Company" shall be responsible for overall security of all the properties of "Muthoot Finance" premises and its personnel working in the said premises, entrusted to them. He further deposed that a perusal of the said agreement and its clause would make it evident that the bonafide intention of defendant no.1 company was to provide security to the life and property of the personnel posted/working in the said branch office of the defendant no.1 including late Mr. Jomesh. He further deposed that no injury has been caused to the plaintiffs on account of any CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 20/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:59:08 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket negligence or intentional tort or even any tort of the defendants no.1, 3 and 4.
27. DW-1 further deposed that defendants no.1, 3 and 4 have not failed to discharge any duty towards deceased Mr. Jomesh T.B. He further deposed that the said security guard namely Vishram Singh was not an employee of the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 but was deployed in the branch office of defendant no.1 by defendant no.5. He further deposed that the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 have no liability whatsoever towards the plaintiffs as there was no negligence on the part of the defendants no.1, 3 and 4. He further deposed that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages from the defendants no.1, 3 and 4. He further deposed that the plaintiff no.1 was not dependent on deceased Jomesh and the plaintiffs no.3 and 5 are not even Class-I legal heir of deceased Jomesh and therefore, they are not entitled to any damages under any law of land.
28. DW-1 futher deposed that on account of the unfortunate demise of Mr. Jomesh T.B., the defendant no.1 convened a meeting of its management and it was decided that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- be paid as a humanitarian gesture vide Debenture Certificate Mark DW-1/7 which was duly received by the family of deceased Jomesh T.B. He further deposed that in furtherance of its care and responsibility qua its employees, the defendant no.1 company had availed an Accidental Death Benefit under the Group Personnel Accident Policy 2011-12. He further submitted that the plaintiff no.1 himself submitted a claim form Mark CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 21/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:59:17 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket DW-1/8 with Employees State Insurance Corporation. He further deposed about the copy of letter dated 16.05.2012 Mark DW-1/9 written by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company to the HRD Department of defendant no.1 with respect to the claim lodged qua the deceased Jomesh T.B. and the said claim of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to and duly accepted by defendant no.1 as full and final settlement of the said Accidental Death Benefit Ex.PW1/D1. He further deposed that the premium of the said policy was paid by the defendant no.1 company. Besides, the defendant no.1 had also borne the expenses towards ambulance charges amounting to Rs.29,989/- and a further sum of Rs.32,800/- towards air ticket expense pertaining to the body of deceased Jomesh T.B. and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any damages. DW-1 further denied that a sum of Rs.1,33,50,000/- is payable by the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 as damages or compensation. He denied that the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid as solatium. DW-1 lastly deposed that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 and therefore, no sum on account of damages or compensation or on any other account is payable to the plaintiffs by the defendants no.1, 3 and 4.
Cross-Examination (DW-1):-
29. DW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiffs. During his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that the incident had not taken place in his presence, but immediately after the occurrence, he alongwith other officials of the company CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 22/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:59:26 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket had visited the incident site. Further, the Branch Manager had called the police. He further stated that they have given security contract to defendant no.5.
30. On further cross-examination, DW-1 stated that the arm license of Sh. Vishram Singh was not verified. He voluntarily stated that it was the duty of the security agency to do so, but Sh.
Vishram Singh was having a valid license as per the charge-sheet filed by the police. DW-1 further stated that he had not personally verified the security agency license of defendant no.2 and 5, but there is a dedicated department in the company to look into these aspects. He further stated that Sh. Vishram Singh was not medically examined before his deployment. He voluntarily stated that it was the duty of the security agency which was also mentioned in the contract with the security agency. All the other suggestions put to him were denied by him.
Examination-in-Chief (D2W-1):-
31. Sh. Naseer Khan (D2W-1) deposed by way of affidavit Ex.D2W-1/A and relied upon documents i.e. Authority Letter Ex.D2W-1/1; certified copy of Form-C dated 01.03.2011 Ex.D2W-1/2; Reply dated 18.01.2014 Ex.D2W-1/3 (already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6); and copy of Agreement dated 27.07.2011 Mark D2W-1/Z-1.
32. D2W-1 deposed that he is the authorized representative/director of defendant no.2 i.e. Sky Force Security & Alliance Service Pvt. Ltd. vide Authority Letter Ex.D2W-1/1.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 23/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:59:39 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket He further deposed that he was one of the partners in partnership firm namely M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Services which was dissolved w.e.f. 31.07.2010 and Form-C vide Registration No.3135/2006 dated 01.03.2011 issued by Registrar of Firms, Delhi Ex.D2W-1/2 was issued. He further deposed that the alleged incident in question occurred on 01.09.2011 but on that day, neither Sky Force Security & Alliance Service Pvt. Ltd. nor M/s. Sky Force Security Services were providing any security service to Muthoot Finance Ltd. He further deposed that on the time, date, month and year of the said incident, deceased Vishram Singh was employed neither by M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Services nor with Sky Force Security & Alliance Services Pvt. Ltd.
33. D2W-1 further deposed that the defendant no.5 was providing security services to defendant no.1 as per the Agreement dated 27.07.2011 Mark-A which was signed and executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5. He further deposed that as per the said agreement, defendant no.5 provided its security services for a period of one year, commencing from 23.07.2011 to 22.07.2012. He further deposed that during that period, deceased Vishram Singh was employed with defendant no.5 and on the date of incident, he was employee of defendant no.5 and providing services to defendant no.1. He further deposed that defendant no.2 has no concern with defendant no.5 namely M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services. He further deposed that plaintiff served a legal notice dated CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 24/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 14:59:51 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket 27.12.2013 claiming therein that deceased Vishram Singh was under the employment of Sky Force Security & Alliance Services Pvt. Ltd. and they replied the said notice vide reply dated 18.01.2014 Ex.D2W-1/3 (already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6) that the said deceased Vishram Singh was not under the employment of Sky Force Security & Alliance Services Pvt. Ltd. but under the employment of defendant no.5 M/s. Super Sheild Facility Management Services.
Cross-Examination (D2W-1):-
34. D2W-1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiffs. During his cross-examination, D2W-1 stated that the Authority Letter Ex.D2W-1 was signed by Nisha Khan who was the director of defendant no.2 as well as his wife also. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid authority letter is forged and fabricated document. On further cross-examination, D2W-1 stated that the defendant no.2/company is not dissolved and the same is still in existence. He denied the suggestion that the defendant no.2 and defendant no.5 is the one and the same legal entity. He lastly denied that the defendant no.2 is vicariously liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs.
Examination-in-Chief (DW-5):-
35. Sh. Santosh Chand Mishra (DW-5) deposed by way of affidavit Ex.DW-5/1 and relied upon documents i.e. Registration Certificate of M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services Ex.DW-1/6; and copy of Agreement dated 27.07.2011 CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 25/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:00:04 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Ex.DW-1/5.
36. DW-5 deposed that he is the proprietor of M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services which is a duly registered firm vide registration certificate Ex.DW-5/A. He further deposed that his firm namely M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services was providing security services to Muthoot Finance Ltd.
and in this regard, he, on behalf of his above-said firm and Muthoot Finance Ltd. had entered into an Agreement dated 27.07.2011 Mark Z, according to which, it was agreed that his above-said firm would provide security services to them from the period of 23.07.2011 to 22.07.2012. He further deposed that at the time of signing and executing of the above-said Agreement dated 27.07.2011, the authorized representative of Muthoot Finance Ltd. namely Mr. D.D. Sharma had prepared the Agreement dated 27.07.2011 and mentioned in the same that his (DW-5) firm namely M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services was formerly known as M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Services and when he (DW-5) told them that he was just working in M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Services in past and his firm has no concern whatsoever with M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services, Mr. D.D.Sharma rreplied that it will not affect anything. DW-5 further deposed that he was previously working with M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Services as supervisor and after gaining experience, he had started his own security firm under the name and style of M/s. Super Shield Facility Management Services with whom Muthoot CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 26/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:00:15 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Finance Ltd. has signed and executed above mentioned Agreement. He further deposed that apart from that, he (DW-5) and his above-said firm is not having any concern with M/s. Sky Force Security & Alliance Services. DW-5 further deposed that according to the said Agreement, he had appointed deceased Vishram Singh, who was licensed armed security guard to Muthoot Finance Ltd., who was on duty on 01.09.2011 at 1679- D, Gali No.3, 1st Floor, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi, when the said unfortunate incident happened. DW-5 further deposed that the said deceased Vishram Singh was drawing salary of Rs.9,500/- and apart from that, his (DW-5) firm used to provide him uniform, shoes and other accessories to perform his duty. DW-5 further deposed that dispute arose between the defendant no.1 and deceased Vishram Singh regarding taking overtime from him and his (DW-5) firm was not having any concern with the same. DW-5 further deposed that the deceased Vishram Singh had not uttered any word against him (DW-5) or his firm before the incident and therefore, his firm is not liable for the act of deceased Vishram Singh. DW-5 further deposed that after the appointment, deceased Vishram Singh was supposed to perform duty to Muthoot Finance Ltd. and he (Vishram Singh) was under their command and instructions and therefore, Muthoot Finance Ltd. is liable for cause of act of deceased Vishram Singh at the time of incident. DW-5 lastly deposed that his firm was not at fault for the alleged incident and therefore, his firm was not liable to compensate the petitioner.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 27/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:00:27 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Cross-Examination (DW-5):-
37. DW-5 was cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiffs. During his cross-examination, DW-5 stated that M/s.
Super Shield Facility Management Services is a proprietary concern and he (DW-5) is the proprietor of the same. He further stated that late Vishram Singh was working in his proprietary concern and he (DW-5) had deployed him for the services of Muthoot Finance Ltd. on the basis of a contract. DW-5 further stated that he had no license under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. He again stated that he had the license. He denied the suggestion that he did not have any such license. On further cross-examination, DW-5 stated that late Vishram Singh had Guard License and same was submitted to the investigating officer. He denied the suggestion that late Vishram Singh had no license. He further stated that Guard License means Arms License. He again stated that the Guard License is issued by the company and Arms License is issued to the individual. He denied the suggestion that he had illegally employed Vishram Singh as security guard of Muthoot Finance. He also denied the suggestion that he had no license to operate security agency. He lastly denied the suggestion that he was vicariously responsible for the death of deceased Jomesh and therefore, liable to pay to the family of deceased Jomesh.
38. Vide order dated 20.04.2024, defendant's evidence was closed and the case was adjourned for final arguments.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 28/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:00:38 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Final Arguments:
39. I heard final arguments advanced by Sh. Jojo Jose, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Sh. S.S. Sobti, learned counsel for defendants no.1, 3 and 4, Sh. Salim Alvi, learned counsel for defendant no.2 and Ms. Megha Saroa, learned counsel for defendant no.5.
40. Learned Counsel for plaintiffs relied upon Lachman Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Anita Devi & Ors., (2007) 147 PLR 605 and Raghbinder Singh v. Bant Kaur & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 106 in support of his contentions whereas learned Counsel for defendant no.1 and 4 relied upon State of Maharashtra v. Deepak R. Shah & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2474 and Damini & Anr. v. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 443.
41. Written arguments were also filed by plaintiffs, defendants no.1 and 4, defendant no.2 and defendant no.5 in support of their respective contentions.
42. Having heard the submissions and perused the record, my issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue no.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.19,99,500/-? OPP
43. In the given peculiar facts, Issue no. 3 is being CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 29/41 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:01:02 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket decided first. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiffs.
44. The facts not in dispute are that the security guard Vishram Singh armed with a firearm (rifle) was deputed in the office of defendant no. 1 i.e Muthoot Finance Limited, where, on 01.09.2011, he opened fire indiscriminately, killing three employees including the deceased Jomesh and grievously injuring another employee of defendant no. 1. Thereafter, Vishram Singh had also committed suicide after shooting himself at his temple with the same rifle.
45. Present is a suit for compensation, filed by the parents and brothers of deceased Jomesh against the defendants where deceased Jomesh was employed and the defendants who had hired the security guard Vishram Singh.
46. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants are liable for committing intentional tort and due to their negligence, the unfortunate incident unfolded resulting in death of Jomesh.
47. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiffs categorically submitted - orally as well as through written submissions - that the claim of the plaintiffs is covered in the intentional tort of negligence and not under the Fatal Accident Act.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 30/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:01:12 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
48. In view of rival submissions and in the given facts and circumstances, first of all, it is to be ascertained if the cause of action to claim compensation survived after the demise of deceased Jomesh. If so, who can bring the action on behalf of deceased Jomesh, against whom such an action can be brought and in what form.
49. In this context, following is the relevant provision to be considered:-
Section 306 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925:
306. Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator. - All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory.
Illustrations
(i) A collision takes place on a railway in consequence of some neglect or default of an official, and a passenger is severely hurt, but not so as to cause death. He afterwards dies without CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 31/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:01:22 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket having brought any action. The cause of action does not survives.
(ii) A sues for divorce. A dies. The cause of action does not survive to his representative.
50. The essential constituents of a tort or civil wrong are as under:-
(1) there must be a wrongful act committed by the person;
(2) the wrongful act must give rise to legal damage or actual damage and (3) the wrongful act must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy in the form and actions for damages.
51. As per Section 306 of the said Act, causes of action for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party as well as cases where after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory, do not survive.
52. In Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gopalankutti Nair, 1986 SCC (1) 118, the Apex Court discussed the common law maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' (a personal action dies with the person) to lay down that in India, which causes of action survive and which abate is laid down in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It was also CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 32/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:01:34 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket clarified that Section 306 of the Act speaks of an action and not of an appeal.
53. In M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira & Ors., 1988 SCC (1) 556, different opinions of Calcutta High Court and Rangoon High Court were set at rest by the Apex Court after discussing the views of other High Courts to lay down in clear terms that the words "personal injuries" do not mean injuries to the body alone but all injuries to a person other than those which cause death and that the relevant words must be read ejusdem generis with the words "defamation and assault".
54. As per the factual matrix of the present case, it was the wrongful act of security guard Vishram Singh in firing indiscriminately from his rifle which resulted in death of Jomesh and two other employees and grievous injuries to another employee of defendant no.1. Had Jomesh survived the bullet injuries, he would have been entitled to seek compensation for the injuries sustained but with his demise, the cause of action to bring the action did not survive being personal in nature. The ratio laid down in M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira (supra) and the illustration (i) attached to Section 306 of Indian Succession Act amply clarify in this regard.
55. It would be a hypothetical discussion against whom such an action would have been permissible to be brought as the wrongdoer Vishram Singh also committed suicide then and there.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 33/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:01:46 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Now, with respect to the question who can bring the action for compensation in case of a deceased person, it is apposite to extract relevant provisions as under:
Section 146 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
146. Proceedings by or against representatives.--
Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person then the proceeding may be taken or application may be made by or against any person claiming under him.
Section 1 of The Legal Representative's Suits Act, 1855:
1. Executors may sue and be sued in certain cases for wrongs committed in lifetime of deceased. -
An action may be maintained by the executors, administrators or representatives of any person deceased, for any wrong committed in the time of such person, which has occasioned pecuniary loss to his estate, for which wrong an actions might have been maintained by such persons, so as such wrong shall have been committed within one year before his death, and the damages, when recovered, shall be part of the personal estate of such person;
and further, an action may be maintained against the executors or administrators or heirs or representatives of any person deceased for any wrong committed by him in his lifetime for which CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 34/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:02:00 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket he would have been subject to an action, so as such wrong shall have been committed within one year before such person's death and the damages to be recovered in such action shall, if recovered against an executor or administrator bound to administer according the English law, be payable in like order of administration as the simple contract debts of such person.
Section 1A of The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855:
1A. - Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong. -Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime.
Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased;
and in every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 35/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:02:13 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before- mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree shall direct.
56. Section 146 of CPC, thus, stipulates about the proceedings by or against the representatives subject to any other law for the time being in force.
57. The Preamble to the Legal Representative's Suits Act, 1855 reads as under:
'Whereas it is expedient to enable executors, administrators or representatives in certain cases to sue and be sued in respect of certain wrongs which, according to the present law, do not survive to or against such executors, administrators or representatives'.
58. However, under the said Act, an action can be brought by executors, administrators or representatives of a deceased person for any wrong committed in the lifetime of the deceased which has occasioned pecuniary loss to the estate of such person, but not for any other wrong, committed within one year before his death.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 36/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:02:25 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
59. Therefore, Section 1 of The Legal Representative's Suits Act, 1855 could not have been taken recourse to by the plaintiffs of the present suit.
60. In view of Section 1A of The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, as far as the present suit filed by the parents and brothers of deceased Jomesh is concerned, it suffices to say that only the parents, and not the brothers, could have filed the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and that's too, within the limitation period of two years from the date of death, as per Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which was also laid down by the Apex Court in Damini and Another (supra).
61. It appears that the plaintiffs tried to fashion the present suit on the model of the petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
62. Present suit does not appear to be a case where horse is put behind the cart but to be a case where horse is put in an altogether different cart when learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that due to negligence in hiring and deploying the security guard Vishram Singh, who allegedly held an arm license valid for U.P. only, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek compensation from the defendants. Such a contention defies logic in as much as, at the first place, it was not proved on record if Vishram Singh was holding arm license valid only in U.P. Merely relying upon the copies of charge-sheet of criminal case wherein complete arm CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 37/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:02:36 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket license was not annexed, is not sufficient to prove the said fact. It appears that plaintiffs contended so only on the basis of certified copy of Seizure Memo of Arms License in FIR No. 303/11 P.S. Kalkaji, N. Delhi without taking note of Verification Report dated 01.02.2012 of A.D.M. Etah, U.P. who verified the genuineness and validity of Arms License no. 1238 in the name of Vishram Singh. No report to the effect that the said Arms License was not valid for Delhi was given in the said report. Moreover, vide order dated 09.05.2016, learned M.M.had directed for further investigation in the aforesaid case FIR on the point as to whether the said licence was valid for only U.P. or not, but plaintiffs failed to produce or get the report of said investigation summoned before the Court to substantiate the contentions for the reasons best known to them.
63. Secondly, even if it is assumed that said arm license was not valid in Delhi, it does not give rise to a claim for compensation for the reason that death of Jomesh did not occur due to Vishram Singh holding an invalid license but it occurred because of indiscriminate firing by Vishram Singh.
64. Here again, it is clear that learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended about the contradictory pleas of intentional tort and tort of negligence. The principles governing law of tort of negligence comprising in duty to take care, breach of a duty resulting in damages, remoteness of consequences, reasonable foresight etc. were given a complete go by while contending so.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 38/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:02:48 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Needless to say, state of mind in intentional tort and tort of negligence operate in altogether different arena and can not be alleged interchangeably.
65. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs are concerned, it suffices to note that Lachhman Singh (supra) and Raghbinder Singh (supra) dealt with the cases where action was brought against the persons who had caused injuries and therefore action was maintainable under general law for seeking damages. In the present suit, Vishram Singh, who caused injuries, committed suicide then and there and suit has not been filed either against his legal heirs or against his estate. Hence, both the cited judgments are distinguishable on facts and are of no help to the plaintiffs.
66. In view of above-discussed facts and circumstances and legal propositions, in my considered opinion, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants.
67. The issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue no.1 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad on account of mis-joinder of parties especially defendants no.3 and 4? OPD
68. In view of findings on issue no.3, claim of compensation for the said civil wrong does not lie against the defendants. CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 39/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:02:59 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Besides, brothers of deceased Jomesh had no right to file the suit for compensation as claimed. Thus, the suit is bad in the eyes of law.
69. The issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue no.2 Whether the defendant no.2 had never given its services to defendant no.1? OPD-2
70. In view of findings on issue no.3, this issue is not relevant for adjudication and is accordingly disposed of.
Issue no.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum or any other rate and for what period? OPP
71. In view of findings on issue no.3, as the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the suit amount, no question arises to claim any interest. The issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
Relief:
72. In view of issue-wise findings particularly on issue no. 3, in my considered opinion, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The suit is accordingly dismissed with costs.
73. Decree-Sheet be drawn.
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 40/41 Digitally signed KULDEEP by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2026.04.27 15:03:11 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
74. File be consigned to Records after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN
Pronounced in the Open Court on NARAYAN Date:
this 27th day of April, 2026 2026.04.27
15:03:25 +0530
(Kuldeep Narayan)
District Judge - 02,
South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi/bh
CS DJ No.207607/2016 T.J. Baby & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. & Ors. 41/41
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket