M Lega Partner

Municipa Corporatio of Delh v. Subhagwant

AIR 1966 SC 1750 : 1966 SCR (3) 649

Facts: Three suits for damages were led by the respondents as heirs of three persons who died as a result of the
collapse of the Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellant-Corporation, formerly the
Municipal Committee of Delhi.

The building was 80 years old and the life of the structure of the top storey, having regard to the type of mortar
use, could be only 40 to 45 years and the middle storey could be saved for another 10 years. The collapse of the
Clock Tower was due to thrust of the arches on the top portion. If an expert had examined this building
speci cally for the purpose he might have found out that it was likely to fall. When the building was inspected
after the collapse it was found that it had deteriorated to such an extent that it was reduced to powder without
any cementing properties.

The High Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur be applied to the case. In the appeal, it was contended
on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was wrong in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to this case.

Issue:

1. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will apply?

Judgement:  

Ramaswami, J – It is true that the normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence and not for the
defendant to disprove it. But there is an exception to this rule which applies where the circumstances surrounding
the thing which causes the damage are at the material time exclusively under the control or management of the
defendant or his servant and the happening is such as does not occur in the ordinary course of things without
negligence on the defendant’s part.  The principle has been clearly stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edn.,
Vol. 23, at p. 671 as follows: “An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is
in the rst instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already established are such that the proper and
natural inference immediately arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the defendant’s
negligence, or where the event charged as negligence tells its own story’ of negligence on the part of the
defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous. To these cases the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies.
Where the doctrine applies, a presumption of fault is raised against the defendant, which, if he is to succeed in his
defence, must be overcome by contrary evidence, the burden on the defendant being to show how the act
complained of could reasonably happen without negligence on his part.”

The legal position is that there is a special obligation on the owner of adjoing premises for the safety of the
structures which he keeps besides the highway. If these structures fall into disrepair so as to be of potential
danger to the passers-by or to be a nuisance, the owner is liable to anyone using the highway who is injured by
reason of the disrepair. In such a case it is no defence for the owner to prove that he neither knew nor ought to
have known of the danger. In other words, the owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the damage is
caused by a patent or a latent defect. In Wringe v. Cohen  [1940 1 K.B. 229] the plaintiff was the owner of a lock-
up shop in Proctor Place, Shef eld, and the defendant Cohen was the owner of the adjoining house. The
defendant had let his premises to a tenant who had occupied them for about two years. It appears that the gable
end of the defendant’s house collapsed owing to a storm, and fell through the roof of the plaintiff’s shop. There
was evidence that the wall at the gable end of the defendant’s house had, owing to want of repair, become a
nuisance, i.e., a danger to passers-by and adjoining owners. It was held by the Court of Appeals that the
defendant was liable for negligence and that if owing to want of repairs premises on a highway become
dangerous and, therefore, a nuisance and a passer-by or an adjoining owner suffers damage by the collapse the
occupier or the owner if he has undertaken the duty of repair, is answerable whether he knew or ought to have
known of the danger or not.

Decision:

Ramaswami, J – In our opinion, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in the circumstances of the present case.
It is not the case of the appellant that there was any earthquake or storm or any other natural event which was
unforeseen and which could have been the cause of the fall of the Clock Tower. In these circumstances, the mere
fact that there was fall of the Clock Tower tells its own story in raising an inference of negligence so as to establish
a prima facie case against the appellant.

In view of the fact that the building had passed its normal age at which the mortar could be expected to
deteriorate it was the duty of the appellant to carry out careful and periodical inspection for the purpose of
determining whether, in fact, deterioration had taken placed whether any precautions were necessary to
strengthen the building.

Applying the principle to the present case it is manifest that the appellant is guilty of negligence because of the
potential danger of the Clock Tower maintained by it having not been subjected to a careful and systematic
inspection which it was the duty of the appellant to carry out.
Advertisements

Share this:

 Twitter  Facebook

Like
Be the first to like this.

Related

State v. Captain Jagjit Singh

(1962) 3 SCR 622 Facts: - The respondent Jagjit Singh along with two others was prosecuted for conspiracy and also under Sections 3 and 5 of
the Indian Of cial Secrets Act. The case against the three persons was that they in conspiracy had passed on of cial secrets to a foreign…

In "(1962) 3 SCR 622"

Manindra Nath Mukherjee v. Mathuradas Chatturbhuj

  AIR 1946 Cal. 175 Facts: This is an action for damages for injury caused to the plaintiff by the fall, from the roof of the defendant’s premises, of a
cinema advertising device, called a banner, which is an article made of the cloth within a wooden frame. The defendant…

In "Act of God"

Ramchandraram Nagaram Rice & Oil Mills Ltd. Gaya v. Municipal Commissioners Of Purulia Municipality

  AIR 1943 Pat. 408 Facts: The plaintiff company had been manufacturing oil and rice for the last 14 years. The mustard oil manufactured by this
company is sold in canisters bearing the registered trade-mark “R.N. Bishnucharan.” This brand of mustard oil began to be sent to Purulia and
sold…

In "case brief"

mylegalpartner / January 3, 2019 / 1940 1 K.B. 229, 1966 SCR (3) 649, AIR 1966 SC 1750, case brief, case summary, Chandni Chowk
Clock Tower, Justice Ramaswami, law of torts, municipal corporation of delhi v. subhagwanti, res ipsa loquitur, Wringe v. Cohen
My Legal Partner / Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.