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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 4196

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P. DEVADASS, J.
Manaparai Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli District & Others
Versus
Veerammal & Others
Second Appeal (MD) No. 854 of 2014 & M.P(MD)No. 2 of 2014
Decided on : 21-11-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:M. Maria Vinola, Advocate.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Municipality for negligence under the Law of Torts, rejecting the defense of 'Act of God' due to lack of evidence of a natural calamity and emphasizing the duty to take care towards others.

Headnote:

Negligence - Municipality - Act of God - Law of Torts - Act of God, Vis-Major - No evidence of natural calamity - Negligent maintenance of sun-shed - Liability of defendants - Second Appeal fails

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs sued the Manapparai Municipality for damages after a sun-shed maintained by the Municipality collapsed and caused the death of the head of the plaintiffs' family. The trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the Municipality liable for negligence. The first appellate Court upheld the decision, and the Municipality appealed to the higher court.

Finding of the Court:

The higher court found that the sun-shed collapse was due to the negligent maintenance by the Municipality and rejected the Municipality's plea of 'Act of God'. The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the Second Appeal as devoid of merits.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Municipality was negligent in maintaining the sun-shed, leading to the death of the plaintiffs' family member. The Municipality also raised the defense of 'Act of God' and questioned the proof of the deceased's age and other relevant factors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Municipality was liable for negligence under the Law of Torts, emphasizing the duty to take care towards others. It rejected the defense of 'Act of God' as there was no evidence of a natural calamity and the sun-shed's poor maintenance was the cause of the collapse.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal failed, and the decrees and judgments of the lower courts were upheld. The Municipality's liability for negligence was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :

Manapparai Municipality/first defendant, as against whom the suit instituted by the plaintiffs, has been decided both in the trial Court as well as in the first appellate Court, is before us.

2. Admittedly, Ramalingam, is the head of the family of the plaintiffs. He was an agent canvassing for and on behalf of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation. He is eking out his livelihood by engaging himself in such operation in the Manapparai Depot of the said Corporation. On the fateful day, namely on 18.05.1994, at about 9.15 a.m., he did not know that he will be called by his Maker. When he was standing underneath the sun-shed maintained by the Municipality, suddenly, it collapsed and fell on Ramalingam. Ramalingam fell as a dead man. He was lifeless. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs sued the Manapparai Municipality as well as the other defendants claiming damages for their negligence in not properly maintaining the sun-shed. They sought for damages to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. The main contesting party/first defendant Manapparai Municipality resisted the claim. It did not deny that unfortunate event. It did not deny that Ramalingam having become immortal, but it would deny that there is no fault or negligence on its part. It would also plead that the collapse of the sun-shed was beyond the control of the Municipality. Thus, it pleads 'Act of God'. Further, it would also plead that age of the deceased and other details, have not been proved.

4. On this divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs, first plaintiff Veerammal examined herself as P.W.1 and Palanichamy and Radhakrishnan as P.Ws.2 and 3 and she has also marked Exs.A1 to A5, while the Municipal Engineer K.Vasudevan, has been examined as D.W.1 and also one more witness Gunasekaran was examined as D.W.2.

5. The trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence adduced and on consideration of the rival submissions repelled the Municipality's plea of Act of God, mulcted it in damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- together with 'Pendente lite interest' at 12% and 'interest on judgment' at 6%, also taking into account the age of the deceased and the pitiable plight of the plaintiffs as having lost their sole breadwinner.

6. Upset by this decision, the Municipality went to the next appellate Court, namely, the Principal District Court, Trichirappalli and wanted uprooting of the judgment of the trial Court on the contention that on the facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced, the Court of first instance ought not to have decreed the suit as prayed for. However, after hearing both sides and adverting to the evidence on record, the appellate Judge, endorsed the view of the trial Court, thus the appeal collapsed. The Municipality not lost its fighting spirit. Now approached this Court under Section 100 C.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced, it would show that the unfortunate event was far beyond the control of the Municipality. Further, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation would be a proper and necessary party. However, it has not been impleaded. Further, there is no proof as to the age of the deceased and other relevant factors. In the circumstances, the Municipality wishes to annul the judgments of both the Courts below.

8. Upon perusing the pleadings in the plaint and written statement and the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar, we are coming to the irresistible conclusion that we have not been successfully persuaded to deviate from the decision of the trial Court and the first appellate Court for the following reasons.

9. Indisputably, on the fateful day, an unfortunate event had taken place. The sun-shed belonging to the Municipality fell down on the head of Ramalingam. No need to prove it. it is 'res ipsa loquitur' meaning, the thing speaks for itself. Further, in







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
whatsapp-icon Back to top