SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Bom) 41

Bombay High Court
CHITALE,NAIN
Kailas Sizing Works - Appellant
Versus
Municipality of Bhivandi and Nizampur - Respondent
Decided On : 03/18/1968

Advocates:
P.P. Khambata and D.S. Parikh with Shamaldas P. Modi, for Appellant; Y.B. Rege with V.B. Rege, for Respondents.

The provisions of S. 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, do not provide absolute immunity to municipalities in respect of acts done negligently. A municipality is protected by S. 167 only if it acts honestly in discharge of statutory duties, whether enjoined or authorised.

Headnote:

BOMBAY DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ACT - SECTION 167 - GOOD FAITH - NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF MUNICIPALITY - DAMAGES.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs' suit for recovery of damages for loss caused to their property on 5th July 1963 by flood water, filed against the Municipality of Bhivandi and Nizampur, was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of S. 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. On appeal, the High Court held that the suit was not barred by S. 167 and that the defendants were liable for the damage caused to the plaintiffs' property due to their negligence.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the defendants were not protected by the provisions of S. 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as they had not acted in good faith in executing the work of constructing a slab across the nullah. The Court found that the defendants had knowledge of the demolition of the Varala dam, which had resulted in increased water flow in the nullah, and that they had negligently narrowed the water-way and put a slab on it without providing adequate passage for rain water. The Court also found that the defendants had failed to remove the centring work and allowed garbage to collect, which obstructed the flow of water. The Court held that the defendants' actions amounted to wilful and wanton negligence and that they were liable for the damage caused to the plaintiffs' property.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of S. 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901? 2. Whether the defendants were guilty of negligence in executing the work of constructing a slab across the nullah?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of S. 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, did not provide absolute immunity to the defendants in respect of acts done negligently. The Court interpreted the expression "done in good faith" in S. 167 to mean "done honestly, whether done negligently or not". The Court held that if a municipality acts in discharge of statutory duties, whether enjoined or authorised, as long as it acts honestly, no action would lie against it even if it acted negligently. However, if it did not act honestly, the negligence would be actionable. 2. The Court held that the defendants were guilty of negligence in executing the work of constructing a slab across the nullah. The Court found that the defendants had knowledge of the demolition of the Varala dam, which had resulted in increased water flow in the nullah, and that they had negligently narrowed the water-way and put a slab on it without providing adequate passage for rain water. The Court also found that the defendants had failed to remove the centring work and allowed garbage to collect, which obstructed the flow of water. The Court held that the defendants' actions amounted to wilful and wanton negligence and that they were liable for the damage caused to the plaintiffs' property.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the decree of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants for Rs. 54,560 with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum from the date of the decree of the trial court till payment. The defendants were also directed to pay the plaintiffs proportionate costs throughout.

Judgement

NAIN, J. :- This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, dismissing their suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,012 as damages for loss caused to their property on 5th July 1963 by flood water, filed against the Municipality of Bhivandi and Nizampur. The plaintiffs allege that they have suffered the loss on account of the negligence of the defendants.

2. The plaintiffs occupy a permanent structure on Yacoob Road at Bhivandi wherein they carry on the business of sizing yarn. They had machinery, raw materials and other goods stored in the premises at all material times prior to and during the month of July 1963. There is a gutter about 1½ feet wide running along side Yacoob Road between the said Yacoob Road and their factory premises. On the other side of the road, there is an open nullah running parallel to the road. This nullah is about 40 to 45 feet wide and provides a passage for dirty water and rain water passing to the creek. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants covered the said nullah with a slab after narrowing it to a width of 15 feet where the slab was put without providing adequate passage for rain water and during the monsoon of 1963 for water from the catchment area constituting Varala Tank. The Government of Maharashtra at the instance of the defendants demolished a portion of Varala Tank in April 1963. In consequence, the rain water falling in the catchment area of the lake was expected to pass along with the rain water falling in the catchment area of the nullah through this nullah on to the creek. The plaintiffs say that in spite of the partial demolition of the Varala Tank, over a height of six feet from the ground level, the defendants commenced the work of laying the cement slab across the nullah after the demolition of the said part of the said tank and completed the work of the laying of the slab in the second week of June 1963. They further alleged that the centring work to support and settle the slab continued to remain unremoved till about the first week of July 1963. This centring work obstructed the passage of bushes and debris and together they prevented the water from passing. The defendants failed to keep the nullah free of centring bushes and debris for the flow of the water in July 1963. The plaintiffs further alleged that their machinery and goods in the said premises at Yacoob Road were damaged by heavy rain water entering the premises as a result of heavy rains on 5th July 1963. According to them, the nullah overflowed because of the obstruction to the passage of water caused by the narrowing of the nullah, slab, centring and garbage. According to them, the damage sustained by their goods was the direct result of the action of the defendants by reason of their negligence and the defendants were therefore liable to make good to the plaintiffs the loss caused by the damage. The defence of the defendants was that there was no negligence on their part in narrowing or slabbing the nullah or in not removing the centring or allowing garbage to collect. They contended that the damage was due to heavy rain which was an act of God. Their principal defence, however, was that a suit of this nature was barred by the provisions of S. 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901.

3. One of the reasons, and in fact the principal reason, for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit was that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. Sections 167 and 167A(1) read as under:

167. No suit shall lie in respect of anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or against any municipality or against any committee constituted under this Act or against any officer or servant of a Municipality or against any person acting under and in accordance with the directions of any such municipality, committee, officer or servant or of a magistrate".

"167A. (1) No suit shall lie against a m






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top