Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 1012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
The Administrator City and Industrial Development Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Pradeep and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 78 of 1999
Decided On : 30-04-2024
For the Appellant : A.S. Bajaj, Adv.
A government agency is liable for negligence if it fails to adhere to safety standards in public infrastructure, as established by relevant circulars.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against judgment and decree - The Appellant challenges the decree allowing the Respondent's suit for damages of Rs. 5,000/- due to negligence in constructing a speed breaker without proper specifications or signage. (Paras 1, 4, 25)
(B) Negligence - Duty of care - The Defendant, being a government agency, is bound by the circular regarding speed breaker specifications, and failure to comply resulted in liability for the accident. (Paras 12, 25)
(C) Tortious liability - The court emphasized that the Defendant's negligence in not adhering to safety standards led to the Plaintiff's injuries. (Paras 25)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, while riding a motorcycle with his mother, suffered injuries due to a poorly constructed speed breaker by the Defendant, CIDCO, which lacked proper signage. (Paras 4, 24)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the Defendant liable for the Plaintiff's injuries due to negligence in speed breaker construction and awarded damages of Rs. 5,000/-. (Paras 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Defendant was bound by the government circular on speed breaker specifications and whether the Defendant constituted a state agency under Article 12 of the Constitution. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Defendant, as a government agency, must adhere to the circular's specifications for speed breakers, and its failure to do so constituted negligence. (Paras 25)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
(Y.G. Khobragade, J.)
1. By the present Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellant/original Defendant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 146 of 1993 whereby the Judgment and decree dated 22.12.1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad in Suit bearing R.C.S. No.489 of 1986, came to be quashed and set aside and thereby allowed the Suit of present Respondent/original Plaintiff seeking direction to the present Appellant/original Defendant to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Present Appellant is the original Defendant and present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in suit bearing R.C.S. No.489 of 1986. (For the sake of brevity, I would like to refer the parties to the present appeal in their original nomenclature).
3. On 25.02.1999, present Appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law as described in Ground Nos. VI & VII of the Appeal Memo which reads as under :
(i) That the learned court below has committed an error, in holding that the Cidco, being the Government agency, is also bound to follow the circular at Exh.47.
(ii) That the learned court below has committed an error in equating the roads in the city with High-ways.
4. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit and thereby prayed for compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that on 29.11.1985 at about 7.00 p. m., he (Plaintiff No. 1) along with his mother (Plaintiff No. 2) through Ganesh Colony to HUDCO from T. V. Center on motorcycle. He was riding the motorcycle in moderate speed and the Plaintiff No. 2 was his pillion. Near CIDCO Bus Stop at N-11 junction, his motorcycle jumped from the speed- breaker which was constructed/erected by defendant CIDCO authority without specification and design. Due to said jump of motorcycle on speed breaker Plaintiff No. 2 fall down from the motorcycle and sustained head serious injury. Thereafter, the Plaintiff No. 2 was hospitalized in Hospital of Dr. Jhinjurde Patil and thereafter she was shifted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant authority has not put any sign board before the speed breaker. Therefore, the said accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the Defendant authority, hence they have prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.
5. The Defendant authority filed its Written Statement at Exh. 12 and thereby strongly resisted the claim of Plaintiffs. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff No. 1 himself was negligent while riding his motorcycle. The Defendant claimed that, the speed- breaker was constructed in standard size and at the relevant time no specific guidelines of State Government were in existence in respect of erection of speed-breakers. The Defendant denied occurrence of accident due to speed-breaker also denied about injury to Plaintiff No. 2. It is also denied by defendant that the Plaintiff No.2 had taken treatment from Dr. Jhinjurde Patil and from Government medical college and hospital, Aurangabad. Most of the allegations levelled by Plaintiffs were denied by the Defendant and hence the Defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the learned trial Court framed the Issues at Exh.13.
7. In order to substantiate the claim, Plaintiff No. 1 examined himself at Exh.27 and examined PW-2 Pradeep, PW-3 Dr. Dilip Lomte and PW-4 Chandrakant. Beside oral evidence, the Plaintiffs have also proved Government Circular Exh.47 in respect of specifying rumbling strips for cautioning and specification for erection of speed breakers on National Highway and State Highway. The Defendant has examined Shri Kiran Waghmare at Exh.54.
8. After hearing both the sides, on 22.12.1989, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Jr., Division, Aurangabad has dismissed the suit of Plaintiffs. B
