What is Suit for damages for malicious prosecution | Vicarious liability of bank shot on security guard

 What is Suit for damages for malicious prosecution | Vicarious liability of bank shot on security guard 

So hi guys today I explain this two topics, guys I cover two topics because this is a very short and easy way to explain so wait and read full article. I hope you will know what you want to know.

Suit for damages for malicious prosecution:

         It was not necessary that finding of malicious prosecution should be recorded in previous proceedings where concurrent finding of fact had been recorded that plaintiff had proved necessary ingredients of malicious prosecution. High Court declined to interfere in award of damages.

Vicarious liability of bank shot on security guard:

          Where the customer had wrongly parked his vehicle and entered bank at the same time when cash box of the bank arrived. Security guard had erroneously perceived act of customer as threat to the cash box and shot him dead. Held, that as the said act of Security Guard was in the course of employment, hence bank was vicariously liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased customer.

Vicarious liability of bank:

           Where there was payment of electricity bill through bank. Exorbitant amount was deducted on account of collection charges as a result of sheer mistake and negligence of officers of the bank. Held, that the bank was liable to compensate loss and damage caused to customer and as such the bank was directed  to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the customer as compensation apart from refund of excess amount.

          But, when there is no privity of contract between the customer of a vehicle and the bank, the bank would not be liable to pay damages. In State bank of india v. Anjalakshmi ammal, the respondents claimed damages against the bank for the latter's failure to pay the premium towards renewal of third party insurance policy, relating to vehicle purchased by the deceased. The deceased had obtained loan from the bank for the purchase of the tractor, the ownership of the vehicle was with the purchaser. There was no instraction from the purchaser for payment of the said premium. There being no negligence on the part of the bank, the dependents were held not entitled to claim damages from the bank for the accident caused by motor vehicles.

So guys if you like the post so please subscribe and share this post. Thank you....