A local authority is liable for damages caused by the fall of a tree on a public road if it has failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the tree is not dangerous to road users.

AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI

( 1 ) ON 18/08/1964between 5 and 6 in the evening two brothers Suresh Chander (the deceased) and Ramesh Chander were going on a scooterfrom their office to their residence. They passed through Alipurroad beyond Kashmere Gate. The deceased was driving thescooter and Ramesh was a pillien passenger. When they reached20, Alipur Road, known as Sant Permanand Blind Relief Mission Building, opposite Rai Sahib Bhola Ram Petrol Pump, abranch of the neem tree standing there fell on the deceased. Hishead was crushed. He was rushed to Irwin Hospital where hedied the following morning at about 11 a. m. inspite of a surgical operation. A piece of wood was found in his brain.

( 2 ) THE deceased left behind a widow, three minor sonsand a minor daughter besides his mother. All six of them broughta suit for damages claiming Rs. 3,00,000 from the defendants,namely, (1) Municipal. Corporation of Delhi, (2) Union ofindia, and (3) Delhi Administration. The suit was partially decreed by a learned judge of this court on the original side. Adecree of Rs. 90,000 was passed in favour of the widow andthe children against Municipal Corporation (the Corporation ). Against defendants 2 and 3 the suit was dismissed. From theorder dated 29/05/1970 two appeals have been brought. In RFA (OS) 23 of 1970 the Corporation claims that the suitbe dismissed. In RFA (OS) 28 of 1970 the plaintiffs claim thatthe decree for Rs. 3,00,000 be passed in place of Rs. 90,000. This judgment will govern them both.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the plaintiffs suit on a varietyof grounds. A large number of issues were raised. But threemain questions arise in ths suit. First whether the suit is barred by reasons of section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act ). Second the question of fault andliability. Whether the defendent Corporation is liable in negligence. Third the amount of damages io oe awarded to theplaintiffs. We will take these three questions separately. The First Question

( 4 ) ON the first question it is convenient to set out section478 of the Act at this stage:"notice to be given of suits.

(1) No suit shall be instituted against the Corporationor against any municipal authority or against anymunicipal officer or other municipal employee oragainst any person acting under the order or direction of any municipal authority or any municipalofficer or other municipal employee, in respect ofany act done, or purporting to have been done, inpursuance of this Act or any rule, regulation or byelaw made thereunder, until the expiration of twomonths after notice in writing has been left at themunicipal office and, in the case of such officer, employee or person, unless notice in writing has alsobeen delivered to him or left at Ins office, orplace of residence, and unless such notice statesexplicitly the cause of action, the nature of therelief sought, the amount of compensation claimed,and the name and place of residence of the intendingplaintiff, and unless the plaint contains a statementthat such notice has been so left or delivered.

(2) No suit, such as is described in sub-section (1) shall. unless it is a suit for the recovery of immovableproperty or for a declaration of title thereto, beinstituted after the expiry of six months from thedate on which the cause of action arises.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to applyto a suit in which the only relief claimed is aninjunction of which the object would be defeatedby the giving of the notice or the postponementof the institution of the suit. "

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the Corporation says that the accident lookplace on 18-8-1964 and the original suit was filed on 13-7-1966. According to him the suit ought to have been filed under see. 478 (2) within six months from the date on which the cause ofaction arose i. e. on 19-8-64 when the victim of the fatal accident died. Now the critical words of section 478 (!) are that"in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done. in p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document