LexTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS. MAY 7, 1999 B [A.P. MISRA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] Torts-Negligence-Fall of a branch of a dead and dried tree on the deceased while he was riding a scooter, crushing his head and resulting in his death the next day-Horticulture department of the Corporation failing C to carry out periodical inspections of the trees or taking safety precaution t~ see that the road was safe for its users-Held, the Municipal Corporation was negligent in performing its duty under the common law and therefore liable in damages to the plaintifft for the injury caused to the deceased by fall of the branch of tree. D Tortous Liability-Claim by Legal heirs of the deceased-Deceased aged 30 years and having net income of Rs. 1000 per month from family business and commission on sales-Dependency assessed at Rs. 800 per month after deducting Rs 200 expenses on self-Multiplier of 15 adopted and quantum of compensation assessed at Rs 1,44,000 by Division Bench of High E Court in supersession of Rs. 90, 000 assessed by the Trial Judge-Held, the figure of compensation arrived at by Division Bench is a very reasonable figure and calls for no interference-Additional interest-Award oj upheld on consideration of totality of circumstances. Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957--Section 478-Provision for F service of two months' notice before institution of a suit and limitation of ::ix months from the date of accrual of cause of action for institution of a suit- Applicabi/ity of-Held, the plaintifft' action was founded in tort and to such an action Section 478 does not apply at all-Suit not vitiated by failure to sever a two months' legal notice~uit filed within a period of two years from G the date of accrual of cause of action was within limitation under Article 82 of the Limitation Act-Indian Limitation Act, 1963-Artic/e 82. On 18th August, 1964, one S was going back home from his office in the evening, on a scooter which he was driving, along with his brother R on the pillion, when a branch ·Of a tree which was dead and dried, fell on the head H of S. His head was crushed and he died the next day. 1198 - . M.C.D. y. SUSHILA DEVI 1199 The legal heirs of the deceased brought a suit for damages in which A Single Judge of the High Court held the Municipal Corporation of Delhi liable for damages in torts and granted a decree for Rs. 90,000 by way of compensation payable to the widow and the children of the deceased. The Corporation deposited the said amount of Rs. 90,000 in the Court on 17-9- 1970. Against the said order of the Single Judge, two Letters Patent Appeals B were preferred before a Divi~on Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal o_f the M.C.D. and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the claimants enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. I 1,44,000 payable with interest calculated @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit i.e. 5-8-1966 till 17-9-1970 .. The Division Bench also allowed additional interest @ 3% p.a. on Rs. 90,000 from the date of deposit in the Court till C the date of actual withdrawal of the amount by the claimants and interest@ 6% p.a. on Rs. 54,000 from 17-9-1970 till the date of payment. Against the order of the Division Bench, both the parties preferred the present cross appeals. On behalf of the M.C.D., it was contended that the Municipal Corporation D being an authority governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, it was necessary for the claimants to have served a legal notice of two months' duration under sub-section 1 of Section 478 of the Act and the suit should have been instituted within a period of six months from the date of accrual of cause of action which having not been done, the suit was barred E by time. Dismissing both the aljlpeals, this Court ·, HELD: 1.1. The Municipal Corporation was negligent in performing its duty under the common law and therefore liable in damages to the plaintiffs for the injury caused to the deceased by fall of the branch of tree F and the consequences flowing therefrom. Tbe tree in question was a dead tree. It had no bark, foliage or buts. The Horticulture Department of the Corporation should have carried out periodical inspections of the trees and should have taken safety precaution to see that the road was safe for its users and su~h adjoining fi·ees as were dried and dead and/or had projecting G branches which cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.