University of Asia Pacific

Department of Laws & Human Rights

Assignment
On
Development of Tort law in Bangladesh : An
evaluation through a Case study

Submitted to Submitted by

Forhad Hossain Durjoy Debnath

Lecturer Reg. No: 23111008

Department of law &Department

Human Rights
of law & Human Rights

University of Asia Pacific

University of Asia Pacific
 Contents
 British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd. Vs. Begum
Shamsun Nahar ……………………………..……………… page 1

 Children’s Charity Bangladesh (CCB) Foundation vs Government

of Bangladesh ..................…………………………………. Page 3

 Bangladesh Beverage Industries Ltd. Vs. Rowshan Akter and Ors.

……………………………………………………………….Page 6

 Catherine Masud vs Kashed Mia and others .……...…….… Page 8

 Page | 1

Case: British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd. Vs. Begum

Shamsun Nahar 66 DLR (AD) (2014) 80

Fact:
Begum Shamsun Nahar worked at British American Tobacco Bangladesh as a Lady confidential
typist . she was the sole permanent female employee of the company. She was sexually harassed
by two colleagues (Azaz Dhamed Choudhury and Golam Farook Khan). The employees of the
British American Tobacco Bangladesh company harassed her in the work place, and Begum
Shamsun Nahar made written complaints to the management of the Begum Shamsun Nahar
company about The sexual harassment and bullying. She complained to the Manager of the
Company, but no action was taken. Victim suffers from insomnia, depression, nervousness, fear,
feeling of powerlessness and other symptoms of psychological harm which sometimes lead to a
complete emotional breakdown. It reducing her performance at job. Instead, she was fired. She
filed a lawsuit asking for damages. The company tried to dismiss her case, but the courts said her
claims needed to be investigated with evidence. The Supreme Court agreed and allowed her case
to continue.

Issue:
 Is British American Tobacco Bangladesh can be held vicariously liable for the alleged
sexual harassment ?
 Will dhe get his compensation?

Argument by appellants:
The appellants argued that the plaint lacked a valid cause of action, the company could not be
held vicariously liable as the alleged acts were personal and outside the scope of employment.
The company argue that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence, that the company is not
responsible for the employee's actions. They contended the suit was legally barred and sought
rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Argument by respondent:
Begum Shamsun Nahar, argued that her plaint disclosed a valid cause of action, as she was
subjected to sexual harassment and bullying by employees of the appellant company, and the
company failed to take action despite her complaints. She contended that the company could be
 Page | 2

held vicariously liable for the employees' actions, as the harassment occurred at the workplace
and was related to her employment. Begum Shamsun Nahar emphasized the need for evidence to
fully address the facts of the case in trial. She also highlighted the severe psychological and
physical harm caused by the harassment, justifying her claim for damages.

Judgement :
The Appellate Division, after hearing both parties and reviewing the High Court Division's
(HCD) judgment, observed that the plaintiff, Begum Shamsun Nahar, was sexually harassed and
approached the company management, but instead of addressing the issue, she was terminated.
The plaint clearly alleges the company's failure to act on the harassment and bullying. The Court
stated that both the company's responsibility for the harassment and the question of vicarious
liability are factual matters that require evidence.
The Court also found that the grounds for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable, as none of the rejection conditions applied. As a
result, the Appellate Division dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, ruling that there was no
merit in the petition.

Reasoning:
A company can be held responsible for the actions of its employees, even if the harassment
occurred outside the scope of their employment, as long as it happened in the course of their
work. Employers must take reasonable steps to prevent and address harassment, including
implementing policies, providing employee training, and setting up complaint mechanisms.
Sexual harassment is considered a civil wrong, and victims can seek damages for the harm
caused, including emotional, psychological, and financial damages.

My opinion :
vicarious liability : This concept makes one man liable for the acts of another because of certain
relationships.

The master is liable for the acts of the servant. That means British American Tobacco
Bangladesh Company also liable for their employe . The manager took no steps against them.
Since they were committing crimes while working for the company, the company also liable. she
got sick because of them, so he was fired from her job. If she can prove it happened to him. I
think the company should give him compensation for the this.
 Page | 3

Case: Children’s Charity Bangladesh (CCB) Foundation vs Government

of Bangladesh

Fact:
On December 26, 2014, a 4-year-old boy, Jihad, fell into an 16 INCHES uncovered shaft while
playing. That was left abandoned by Bangladesh Railway & WASA authorities in Shajanpur
railway colony. Despite initial rescue attempts by Bangladesh Fire Service was lacking necessary
equipment and expertise. They tried about 10-12 hours without any result. failed to retrieve him.
They declare that there was nobody inside the shaft and leave the scene. Local young 5
volunteers successfully recovered the body by using a hand-made device, but Jihad had already
passed away. This tragic incident sparked public outrage and legal action against the negligent
authorities.

Issue :
1. The locus standi of the petitioner
2. Whether the death caused could be attributed to the alleged negligence of the respondents
3. Whether a compensation claim could be sustained for breach of a statutory/constitutional duty
against public bodies
4. Whether compensation claims could be made under Article 102 of the Constitution against
public bodies
5. The compensation to be awarded to the victim‘s family.

Argument by appellants:
The appellants, the Children's Charity Bangladesh Foundation, argued that the authorities,
including Bangladesh Railway, WASA, and the Fire Service, were negligent in their
responsibilities, which directly caused the tragic death of Jihad. They claimed that this
negligence breached constitutional rights to life, liberty, and safety Articles 31, 32, and 36. The
authorities failed to take timely and effective rescue measures despite their duty to protect public
safety. Their lack of proper equipment and preparation further demonstrated a disregard for these
responsibilities.
To address this, the appellants demanded 30 lakh Bangladeshi Taka as compensation for Jihad's
family to account for the harm caused by this negligence. They also requested the court to issue
directives to identify and secure all hazardous open pipes, wells, and similar dangers across the
country and to provide a detailed report on these issues.
 Page | 4

The appellants stressed the importance of holding the responsible officials accountable and urged
the court to implement systemic improvements in rescue operations and public safety to prevent
future tragedies.

Argument by respondent:
The respondents, including Bangladesh Railway, WASA, and the Fire Service, argued that they
did everything possible to rescue Jihad. They claimed that their teams acted quickly and
sincerely after the incident, using the resources and tools they had. However, they admitted that
they lacked advanced equipment needed for such a complex and unique rescue operation, as their
tools were not suitable for locating someone in such a narrow and deep shaft.
The respondents explained that the incident was rare and unprecedented in Bangladesh, and they
lacked prior experience handling such situations. They also mentioned that they sought help from
other organizations and volunteers during the rescue attempt. Additionally, they highlighted their
past successes in major rescue missions, like the Rana Plaza collapse, to demonstrate their
overall reliability.
They denied being negligent, arguing that their efforts were constrained by circumstances
beyond their control. Finally, they opposed the demand for compensation, stating that they
worked to the best of their abilities and did not intentionally neglect their responsibilities.

Judgement:
In the case of Jihad’s tragic death, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled that the authorities,
including Bangladesh Railway, WASA, and the Fire Service, were negligent in their duties. They
failed to secure the uncovered shaft where Jihad fell, which directly led to his death. Despite
attempts to rescue him, the lack of proper equipment and timely action were deemed as serious
failures.
The Court determined that Jihad’s fundamental rights to life, safety, and protection under the
Constitution were violated due to the negligence of the authorities.
The Court ordered the authorities to pay 30 lakh Taka as compensation to Jihad’s family for the
harm caused.

Reasoning:
The Court found that Bangladesh Railway and WASA were responsible for leaving the shaft
uncovered, which directly led to Jihad's death. By failing to secure the shaft, these authorities
neglected their duty to ensure public safety. The Fire Service attempted to rescue Jihad but
lacked the necessary equipment, and their tools failed during the rescue. The operation was
prematurely abandoned, which the Court considered gross negligence.
 Page | 5

The Court emphasized that the authorities' actions violated Jihad's right to life and safety, as
guaranteed by the Constitution of Bangladesh (Articles 31, 32, and 36). It also recognized the
emotional, financial, and psychological harm to Jihad's family and ordered 30 lakh Taka in
compensation.
The Court directed the authorities to take preventive measures to secure similar hazardous sites
across the country. The case, filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), aimed to address public
safety, rights violations, and hold authorities accountable for their failures.

My opinion:
If the authorities had paid attention to this aspect from the beginning, this case might not have
been filed and a life would have been saved. This case could be considered as benchmark for the
development of public law compensation in judicial system of Bangladesh. For the first time in
the judicial activism in the Supreme Court, the High Court Division analysed the gross
negligence and breach of statutory duty of government It has also taken care that such problems
do not arise in the future. However, the Bangladesh Fire Service should improve their equipment
so that such problems do not arise in the future. A life is lost due to their carelessness and
negligence.
Undoubtedly Such cases will contribute a lot to further development of Constitutional tort.
 Page | 6

Case: Bangladesh Beverage Industries Ltd. Vs. Rowshan Akter and Ors.

Fact :
On December 8, 2023, around 5:30 PM, Mozammel Hossain Montu, after purchasing cigarettes
from Kamal Store, was crossing the road in front of Ananda Bhaban, Shantinagar, when he was
struck by a minibus (Dhaka 6933) that was speeding from the wrong direction (coming from
Jonaki Cinema Hall). The impact of the collision caused severe head and facial injuries,
including a skull fracture. Montu was rushed to Dhaka Medical College Hospital but succumbed
to his injuries due to excessive bleeding. At the time of his death, he was 44 years old and
survived by his wife, two minor sons, parents, a brother, and a sister.

Issue:
Whether Bangladesh Beverage Industries Ltd. is legally liable for the accident that caused the
death of Mozammel Hossain Montu and, if so, the amount of compensation the company owes to
his family.
Sub-Issues:
1. Was the accident caused due to negligence by the minibus driver or was it an unavoidable
incident because Montu crossed the road abruptly in an unsafe
2. Are the compensation claims made by Montu’s family (Tk. 3,52,97,000) justified, or are
they exaggerated and lacking a legal basis?
3. Should the employer (Bangladesh Beverage Industries) be held vicariously liable for the
driver’s actions, even if they argue the driver was not at fault?

Argument by appellants:
The accident wasn’t their fault. They said Montu suddenly crossed the road in an unsafe way, so
the driver couldn’t avoid hitting him.
Their driver was qualified, careful, and following the traffic rules when the accident happened.
The amount of money Montu’s family was asking for (Tk. 3,52,97,000) was unrealistic and
exaggerated. They believed Mozammel Hossain Montu was responsible for the accident because
he didn’t use a proper crossing. Some parts of the family’s claim didn’t have a strong legal basis.
The company claimed the accident was unavoidable, their driver wasn’t at fault, and the
compensation demand was too high.

Argument by respondent:
 Page | 7

The accident happened because the minibus driver was driving on the wrong side of the road and
being reckless.
Mozammel Hossain Montu was the main earner for his family. His death caused them emotional
and financial hardship, especially for his wife and two young sons. Mozammel Hossain Montu
was a talented journalist, writer with a bright future. His death cut short his contributions to his
family and the nation. They calculated the compensation based on his current salary, potential
future income, and the emotional suffering caused by his sudden death. In short, the family said
the driver was at fault, and they deserved a large compensation for losing their husband and
father.

Judgement :
The court allowed the company’s appeal, meaning it didn’t fully agree with the lower court’s
decision. The family had claimed 3.5 crore taka in compensation for the loss of Montu, but the
court reduced the amount or rejected some of their claims. The company argued the driver wasn’t
at fault, but the court adjusted the compensation based on the facts. In the end, the court sided
partly with the company, and the compensation was lowered or modified. The trial court ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Tk 3.52 crore for damages, finding the driver’s actions reckless
and in violation of law. The case went through appeals, and the final compensation was reduced
to Tk 1.71 crore by the Appellate Division.

Reasoning:
It found that the driver was partly at fault, but the accident might have also been caused by
Montu’s actions, like crossing the road suddenly. The family’s claims for compensation were too
high and not all of them were supported by facts. The future earnings claimed by the family were
based on guesses rather than solid proof. The court decided the amount of compensation needed
to be lowered because some of the claims were exaggerated or not legally justified.

My opinion:
This case is important for two reasons. First, it confirmed the tort of negligence as a valid cause
of action in Bangladesh, aligned with common law principles from the UK.
Second, it highlighted the concept of vicarious liability, where the employer was held responsible
for the employee's actions. The judgment strengthens tort law in Bangladesh, setting precedents
for future negligence claims and employer responsibility.

Case: Catherine Masud vs Kashed Mia and others, 67 DLR 527

 Page | 8

Fact:
On August 13, 2011, filmmaker Tareque Masud, his wife Catherine, and their team were
traveling in a microbus on the Dhaka-Aricha Highway. A speeding bus owned by Chuadanga
Deluxe Paribahan, overtaking recklessly, entered the wrong lane and collided head-on with the
microbus near "Joka." The crash killed Tareque, the microbus driver, and three others instantly.
Catherine and several others were seriously injured. The bus driver fled the scene. The police
filed an FIR against the bus driver for reckless driving.
The case was filed under Section 128 of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1983. However, the case
was then transferred from the tribunal of Manikganj to the High Court Division on the basis of a
petition made by the claimant under Article 110 of the Constitution.
Catherine, on behalf of her son and Tareque’s mother, filed a compensation claim for 9,94,04,646
taka, citing the financial and emotional losses caused by Tareque’s death.

Issue:
whether the bus driver’s negligence caused the fatal accident and whether the owners would be
held vicariously liable.

Argument by appellants:
The appellants argued that the accident was caused by the bus driver's reckless driving, including
speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road. They emphasized the tragic loss of Tareque
Masud, a well-known filmmaker and the family's main source of income, which caused
significant financial and emotional hardship for his wife, son, and mother. They also argued that
the bus owners and the insurance company should be held responsible for compensation, and
they sought a higher amount than the insurance company’s limited coverage. Additionally, they
highlighted the emotional impact of the loss on the family and the need for compensation for
their suffering.

Argument by respondent:
The respondents (bus owners, driver, and insurance company) argued that the microbus driver
was at fault for the accident. They claimed the microbus crossed the road divider and hit the bus
while trying to overtake, and that the bus driver tried to avoid the crash but couldn’t. They also
said the microbus driver was driving recklessly at high speed.
 Page | 9

The insurance company argued that their responsibility was limited to the terms of the policy and
only covered certain damages, not the full amount the claimants were asking for. They also
pointed out that the bus driver had an expired license, which affected the policy.
Finally, the respondents claimed the claim was invalid because the legal procedures were not
followed correctly and the case was filed in the wrong form. They asked for the case to be
dismissed or the compensation reduced based on these issues.

Judgement:
The court found that the bus driver’s reckless driving was the primary cause of the accident. The
driver’s speeding and overtaking in the wrong lane were deemed negligent. As a result, the bus
owners were held responsible for the driver’s actions.
The insurance company was also found liable, but its compensation was limited by the terms of
the insurance policy.
The total compensation was Tk. 4,61,75,452, with the insurance company liable for Tk. 80,000,
the driver for Tk. 30,00,000, and the remaining amount equally divided between the two bus
owners.

Reasoning:
The court found that the bus driver’s reckless driving was the main cause of the accident, as he
was speeding and overtaking in the wrong lane, leading to a head-on collision with the microbus.
The bus owners were held responsible for the driver’s actions under employer liability (vicarious
liability), as the driver was acting within the scope of his employment. The insurance company
was also found liable for compensation, though its responsibility was limited by the terms of the
insurance policy. Despite the bus driver having an expired and invalid license, the insurance
policy still covered the victims, but only up to the policy’s specified limits.

My opinion:
When there is a wrong, there is a remedy. The case of Catherine Masud vs. Kashed Mia has
significant implications for Bangladeshi tort law. It emphasizes that victims of negligence can
seek both criminal and civil restitution. This decision is a rare instance of tort law being
implemented in Bangladesh and establishes a precedent for holding negligent parties liable.
Lawyers can use this case to reference similar claims in the future.