Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1966 Supreme(SC) 68

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (In all the appeals), Appellant
Versus
1. Subhagwanti and others (In C. A. No. 1102 of 1963),
2. Munshi Lal and others (In C. A. No. 1103 of 1963),
3. Kuldip Raj and others (In C. A. No. 1104 of 1963), Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1102 to 1104 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Sardar Bhahadur and Arun B, Saharya, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (In all the appeals): M/s. N. D. Bali and Din Dayal Sharma, Advocates, for Respondents (In C. As. Nos. 1102 and 1103 of 1963): Mr. R. L. Anand, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, with him), for Respondents (In C. A. No. 1104 of 1963).

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, Arun B.Saharaya, BISHAN NARAIN, D.D.SHARMA, N.D.BALI, R.L.Anand, Saidar Bahadur Saharya

The owner of a structure abutting on a highway is legally responsible for maintaining it in a safe condition, irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect.

Headnote:
Negligence - Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - The Court held that the appellant, as the owner of the Clock Tower abutting on the highway, was bound to maintain it in a proper state of repairs so as not to cause any injury to any member of the public using the highway. The Court referred to Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which provides for liability in case of death caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default. The Court stated that the damages awarded should be proportionate to the loss resulting from the death of the person. The Court also referred to precedents from English law to support the principle that the owner is legally responsible for maintaining structures abutting on a highway.
Fact of the Case:
These appeals arise out of 3 suits for damages filed by the heirs of three persons who died as a result of the collapse of a Clock Tower belonging to the appellant-Corporation. The trial Court held that it was the duty of the Municipal Committee to take proper care of buildings and rejected the plea of the Municipal Committee that it could not be held liable for latent defects. The High Court maintained the decree for damages and held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to the case. The High Court also held that the appellant was negligent in looking after and maintaining the Clock Tower. The main question presented for determination in these appeals is whether the appellant was negligent and liable to pay damages for the death of the persons resulting from the collapse of the Clock Tower.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this case, as the Clock Tower was exclusively under the ownership and control of the appellant and the fall of the Clock Tower raised an inference of negligence. The Court further held that the appellant, as the owner of the Clock Tower abutting on the highway, was bound to maintain it in a proper state of repairs to prevent injury to the public. The Court also stated that the owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect. The Court referred to precedents from English law to support this principle. The Court concluded that the appellant was guilty of negligence for not carrying out proper inspections of the Clock Tower.
Ratio Decidendi: The main legal point established in this judgment is that the owner of a structure abutting on a highway is legally responsible for maintaining it in a safe condition, irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect.
Result: The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : These appeals arise out of 3 suits for damages filed by the heirs of three persons, namely Shri Ram Parkash, Shrimati Panni Devi and Sant Gopi Chand who died as a result of the collapse of the Clock Tower situated opposite the Town Hall in the main Bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellant-Corporation, formerly the Municipal Committee of Delhi.

2. Suit No. 552 of 1952 was filed by the heirs of Shri Ram Parkash, suit No. 930 of 1951 was filed by the heirs of Smt. Panni Devi and suit No. 20 of 1952 was filed by Kuldip Raj whose father, Gopi Chand was killed by the fall of the Clock Tower. All the suits were tried by the Court of Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, who disposed of all the suits by a common judgment, dated July 9, 1953. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 25,000 to Shrimati Subhagwanti and other heirs of Ram Parkash in suit No. 552 of 1952, a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the heirs of Shrimati Panni Devi in suit No. 930 of 1951 and a sum of Rs. 20,000 to Kuldip Raj in suit No. 20 of 1952. It was held by the trial Court that it was the duty of the Municipal Committee to take proper care of buildings, so that they should not prove a source of danger to persons using the highway as a matter of right. The trial Court rejected the plea of the Municipal Committee that in the case of latent defects it could not be held liable and the Municipal Committee, as the owner of the building abutting on the highway, was liable in negligence if it did not take proper care to maintain the buildings in a safe condition. It was submitted against the Municipal Committee before the trial Court that, apart from superficial examination of the Clock Tower from time to time by the Municipal Engineer, no examination was ever made with a view to seeing if there were any latent defects making it unsafe. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the Municipal Committee filed appeals in the High Court in all the three suits. On November 27, 1959 the High Court disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment. The decree for Rupees 25,000 in suit No. 552 of 1952 was maintained, the amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded in suit No. 930 of 1951 in favour of Munshi Lal and others was reduced to Rs. 7,200, and the amount of Rs. 20,000 awarded in suit No. 20 of 1952 was reduced to Rs. 9,000. The High Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to the case. The High Court considered that it was the duty of the Municipal Committee to carry out periodical examination for the purpose of determining whether deterioration had taken place in the structure and whether any precaution was necessary to strengthen the building. The High Court mainly relied on the evidence of Shri B. S. Puri, Retired Chief Engineer, P. W. D., Government of India who was invited by the Municipal Committee to inspect the Clock Tower after its collapse and who was produced by them as their witness. The facts disclosed in his statement and that of Mr. Chakravarty, the Municipal Engineer were that the building was 80 years old and the life of the structure of the top stoery, having regard to the type of mortar used, could be only 40 to 45 years and the middle stoery could be saved for another 10 years. The High Court also took into consideration the statement of Mr. Puri to the effect that the collapse of the Clock Tower was due to thrust of the arches on the top portion. Mr. Puri was of the opinion that if an expert had examined this building specifically for the purpose he might have found out that it was likely to fall. The witness further disclosed that when he inspected the building after the collapse and took the mortar in his hands he found that it had deteriorated to such an extent that it was reduced to powder without any cementing properties.

3. These appeals are brought by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the decree of the High Court, dated November 27, 1959 in First Appeals No. 69-D of 1953, No. 71-D of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document