RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus MANJULBEN JAYANTILAL NAKUM AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 17-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
v. 
MANJULBEN JAY ANTILAL NAKUM AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY.AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.) 
Torts: 
Negligence-Breach of duty-Carelessljr-By Public Authority-
C Damages fo~iability-Arising of-Factors to be considered-Deceased 
while walking on footpath of a public road was struck by a roadside tree, 
which suddenly fell on him in still weather condition resulting in his 
death-Suit ftled by deceased's wife and children claiming damages from 
Municipal Corporation on ground of negligence in not properly maintaining 
roadside trees-Held: Proximity of relationship between person who suffered 
D damages and the wrong doer, foreseeability of danger and duty of care owed 
by public authority must be established--Burden of proof on plaintiff-Plain· 
tiff could not succeed by merely establishing occwrence of accident due to 
negligence i.e. ~efendant's failure to take reasonable care as ordinal)' prudent 
matt-Foreseeability of damage or danger to person or property must be 
E 
~a-related to public duty of care-Duty of care should be to avoid causing of 
present or imminent danger created by positive act of public authority-Harm 
complained of must be of the kind contemplated by statute-Action for 
damages would not lie if statute did not intend to guard the kind of damage 
suffered or if some other remedy was available or provided by statute-in the 
circumstances of the case, Corporation not liable for damages-Proximity of 
F relationship and foreseeability of danger not fountl-Corporation could not 
be expected to have a duty to maintain constant supervision by testing the 
healthy condition of the tree.~Special circumstances to be taken into account 
stated-Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 
G 
Negligence-StatutOTy Corporation or public authority-Municipal Cor-
poration-Principle of law of negligence-Applicability of-Held: Situations 
different when act was one of commission and one of omission-Act would 
110t be negligent, if it was done in good faith in the exercise of, and within the 
limits of, the discretion. 
H 
Negligence-Before the repository of statutory power could be made 
304 
RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. MANJULBEN JAY ANTILAL 
305 
·· ~ ..., 
liable for negligence for a failure to exercise it, the statute must impose a A 
statutory duty and confer a private right of action in damages for breach 
thereof-But common law duty must not be superimposed through process of 
statutory interpretation-Duty of care when arose, discusse~ereseeability 
as test-Imminent danger theory-The duty of care should not'impose an 
intolerable burden on the public authority and prevent it from peifomting its B 
,... 
nonnal duties. 
,. 
~ 
Negligence--Misfeasance and non-feasance-Distinction be!ween-Ex-
plained. 
Damages-Tortious liability-Held: In absence of statutory law in this c 
regard, common law principles evolved in Engla11d might be applied in India 
to the extent of suitability and applicability to Indian conditions. 
Statutory Corporation~unicipal Corporation-Held; could be held 
liable and be sued for wrongs involving fraud, malice as well as for wrong in 
which intention was immaterial. 
D 
· "r 
Tort and contract-Distinction betweert-Explained. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Legislative intent-Detennination oj-:£xplained. 
E 
Wordf and Phrases: "Misfeasance and non-feasance'~ "Negligence" and 
"duty''-Meaning oHn tlte context of Law of Torts. 
Legal Maxims : "volenti non fit injuria" and "novus actus interveniens' 
-Applicability of 
F 
The deceased was· walking on footpath of a public r oad on the way 
to his office, when a roadside tree, which was in a still cundition, had 
suddenly fallen on him, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his 
head and other parts of the body and later died in the hospital. The G 
respondents, being the deceased's widow. and children, ftl ed a suit for 
damages in a sum of Rs.llakh from the appellant-Corporation. The trial 
--":" ..... 
Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.45,000 finding that the appellant 
had failed in its statutory duty to check the healthy condition of trees and 
to protect the deceased from the tree falling on him resulting in his death: 
On appeal, the Division Bench had held that the appellant had statutory H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A duty to plant trees on the roadsides as also the corresponding duty to 
maintain the trees in proper condition. The statutory duty gave rise to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.