1

Jogindra v Ram Lal

Case Analysis
Submitted by Submitted to
Satyam Pratap Deo Soni Bhola
Sec- ‘A’ Assistant Professor
Roll no. 1373 Law of Tort
 2

Introduction
The present case deals with the concept of the joint tortfeasor and whether a person not
named initially in the FIR can be held liable if the person filing the FIR relied upon FIR
during, the time of pleading. This case explains to us, how when someone took the help of
some evidence during the primary stage of proceeding going in the trial court to claim
compensation from the defendant and later when the case reaches through appeal in the
higher court the reliance which was taken during the initial stage of pleading was argued by
the plaintiff to be non-material. This case explains where the concept of joint tortfeasor can
be applied. As in this case, the plaintiff claims damages from the legal representatives of the
defendant, by claiming them as joint tortfeasor. In this case court nicely interpreted the
concept of joint tortfeasor and acquitted the defendant. As the plaintiff cannot prove her case.
In this case, the evidence provided by the plaintiff does not corroborate with her case. And
she is not able to prove her case because she has no concrete evidence to support her claim.
In, this case court very clearly elucidated the concept of joint tortfeasor.
The objective behind the case
The objective behind choosing this case is to delve into the concept of joint tortfeasor and its
application in the law of torts. Through this case, I’ll try to explain how the joint tortfeasor
works and when can a party use this concept to sue the wrongdoers in the cases of tort. In the
case of joint tortfeasor, the aggrieved party has the discretion to sue anyone of them. In case
he sues only one of the wrongdoers then the other cannot say why he alone is being sued.so,
in the case where the aggrieved party is arguing his case for joint tortfeasor then he can claim
damages from both the wrongdoers.
 3

Facts
The case is of the year 2000, plaintiff was residing in a small village Neri Dhar of Himachal
Pradesh. At the time of the offense, she was alone at her home. At around 2:00 P.M.
defendant came to her house and started abusing and plating stones at her. Due to this, her
arm was fractured. Then she reported the matter to the police. After that prosecution was
started before the criminal court. And it was alegaed that due to fracture of her arm she could
not work for 45 days. Due to a fracture of arm her husband has also stop going to work
because he have to take care of her and the family members. She further claimed the medical
expenses incurred by her. Later on she saod that because of the wrongful act of the defendant
she suffers both physical and mental pain. And lastly she claimed 70000 rupess as damages
from the defendant. Then defendant while refuting all the charges said that he had not thrown
any stone at the plaintiff and neither abused her. Then, the matter was reached before the trial
court.

Issue
1. Whether the plaintiff entitled to claim 70000 on account of her being suffering from
mental and physical trauma?
2. Whether this suit is maintainable or not?
3. Whether the suit, bad for the misjoinder of the party?

Initial decree
After listening to both the parties and recording of evidence and evaluating the same, the
learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and awarded 50000 to be payable by
the defendant. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court defendant appeals in the
court of first appeal. Then this court rejected the decree passed by the trial court held in the
favour of the defendant. Then she finally approached the high court.
 4

Arguments
Plaintiff- It was argued by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that since the
defendant was one of the joint tortfeasors, hence, the suit is maintainable against him. He
went on further to explain the concept of tortfeasors.
He explains that two or more person becomes joint tortfeasor if they commit the tort in
concrete or by the principle of vicarious liability( relation of master and servant or principal
and agent).
He further explains the right of the aggrieved party to claim damages from the joint
tortfeasor, so in the present case that of the petitioner. Under the law of torts, tortfeasors are
jointly and severally liable for the whole damages. In, case of joint tortfeasor the aggrieved
party have the right to sue both or any one of the tortfeasor. And in case where only one of
the joint tortfeasor has been sue on the ground that he is vicariously liable for the tort
committed by other tortfeasors (servant or agent), then in that case also the master is liable.
He further put reliance on the definition of joint tortfeasor from the Salmond treaties on torts.
In this book joint tortfeasor was defined as the same damage is caused to a person by two or
more persons (wrongdoer). And those wrongdoers may be jointly or severally be sued.
He further explain the joint and several liability from the black dictionary
“A liability is said to be joint and several when the creditor may sue one or more of the
parties to such liability separately, or all of them together, in his opinion.”
Counsel finally put reliance on the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd
and Ors. In this case, the Supreme Court explained the possibility of fixation of liability of
concert tortfeasor. Court held that in case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to
sue both the tortfeasor or any one of them. It is wholly up to the discretion of the plaintiff to
claim the entire compensation from both or any one of them. Court further said that the
apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasor vis-à-vis the plaintiff is not
permissible. Lastly the court held that it would not be appropriate for the court to determine
the extent of gross negligence of the driver of two cars in the absence of impleadment
(bringing new party into an existing suit.) of joint tortfeasor. So, in that case the other joint
tortfeasor who was not sued can be left, and in case the plaintiff desires to sue the impleaded
tortfeasor then he has to sue him separately.
Defendant
The counsel on behalf of defendant argued that to whom the plaintiff is suing in the present
case. Whether she is suing against the joint tortfeasor or against the defendant alone. Counsel
put reliance on paras 3, 4, and 7 of the plaint. In this it can be clearly seen that claim of
plaintiff is not against the joint tortfeasor but against the defendant only.
 5

Judgment
The court in this case held that the defendant is not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff and
upheld the order of the appellant court. The court said that the plaintiff was not able to
provide the evidence to show that the loss caused to her was due to the act of the defendant.
She was even not able to provide any bill of medicine and other expenses that she incurred
due to the act of the defendant. And the court further said that when she was aware of the fact
that the defendant was the one who cause damage to her why don’t she named him in FIR.
The name of the defendant came when the trial of the FIR culminated into a charge- sheet.
And court further said that initially the FIR was against the wife and son of the defendant and
later on it was converted against the defendant. dismissing the award passed by the trial court
of 50000 as there was no virtual material present in the case. So, lastly the court dismissed
the appeal of the plaintiff, as there was no merit in the case.

Conclusion
In this legal case, we learned some valuable lessons about how the law deals with situations
where more than one person might be responsible for causing harm, which they call "joint
tortfeasors." We also saw the crucial role of strong evidence in supporting legal claims. The
story started in a small village in Himachal Pradesh back in 2000. The person who brought
the case, known as the plaintiff, claimed that the defendant's actions had physically and
emotionally harmed her, leading to financial losses. To make up for her suffering, she was
asking for a significant amount of money from the defendant. The big questions in this case
were whether the plaintiff had the right to ask for so much money, whether her case was
valid, and whether it was okay to include multiple people in the lawsuit. After thinking it over
carefully, the first court decided to give the plaintiff 50,000 rupees. But the defendant
disagreed and appealed the decision. The higher court decided in favor of the defendant,
which made the plaintiff take the case to a higher court, called the high court. The main
argument from the plaintiff was that the defendant was part of a group of people responsible
for her suffering. So, she thought he should be held accountable. Her legal representative
explained that when many people are involved in causing harm, they can all be held
responsible for the damage together or separately. To support this, the plaintiff's legal team
used legal definitions and examples from past court cases. On the other side, the defendant's
lawyer argued that the plaintiff's case seemed to focus only on the defendant, not the whole
group of wrongdoers. They also pointed out some inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims. In
the end, the court agreed with the defendant. They said the plaintiff couldn't show strong
enough evidence to directly link her suffering and losses to the defendant's actions. They also
noticed that the plaintiff didn't provide medical bills or other important documents, which
weakened her case. The court also questioned why the defendant's name only came up in the
case after an initial report had named his wife and son. To sum it up, this case teaches us that
having solid evidence is crucial when you're making legal claims. It also shows how
important it is to be clear and consistent when you're arguing your case in court, and to have
the right documents to back up your claims. The court's decision also reaffirms the idea that
when several people are responsible for harm, they can all be held responsible together or one
 6

by one. This case is a useful example for understanding how responsibility is determined in
cases where more than one person might be at fault.