Trace Your Case

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. SMT SUSHILA DEVI & ORS

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Smt Sushila Devi, AIR 1999 SC 1929

ISSUE:

  • Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is liable for the death of an individual caused by negligence by failing to maintain trees in the public?
  • What is the limitation period to file a suit under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957?

RULE:

  • The Municipal Corporation owes a duty in ensuring that trees in the public that are old, dry and dead are to be handled with care immediately to prevent any damage to the passerbys.
  • When the owner of a tree has a constructive knowledge of the harmful condition the tree is in, they owe a duty of care to the general public.
  • The limitation period of 6 months under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is applicable to suits filed for actions done by the Corporation within the limits of the Act and not for tortuous negligence cases. The limitation period of 2 years in Article 82 of the Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable to tortuous negligence cases.

FACTS:

  • On 18.08.64, two brothers, Ramesh Chander & Suresh Chander were on their scooter on the way to their house from their office when a branch from a neem tree fell on Suresh’s head leading to his skull being crushed in Alipur Road.
  • In spite of receiving emergency and immediate treatment in the nearby Irvin hospital, wherein the surgeons had to medically remove wood from his skull, Suresh died due to the injuries on 19.98.64.
  • The legal heirs and survivors of Suresh sent a legal notice to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in April 1966 after which a suit for compensation amounting to Rs 3,00,000 was filed by them on 05.08.66.
  • A Single Judge of the High Court ordered for a compensation of Rs 90,000 while holding the Corporation guilty for negligence.
  • An appeal was sough to the Division Bench by the Corporation for dismissal and by the survivors for increasing the compensation. While rejecting the appeal of the Corporation, the compensation was increased to Rs 1,44,000 with an interest of 6% p.a.
  • Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the survivors and the Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court rejected both the appeals and upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court with respect to finding the Corporation guilty of negligence.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Division Bench considering that it was justified due to the daily income of the deceased which was Rs 800. The amount arrived at was by considering the multiplier to be 15.
  • The Supreme Court identified that the Division Bench relied on expert opinions by various experts, all whose opinions were that the neem tree was dry, dying and had no bark, thus making it a dangerous peril to the people passing by that tree.
  • The Supreme Court held that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was well aware of the danger that the dried neem tree posed to the public and yet it failed to deal with the situation, thus breaching their duty towards the general public.
  • The Supreme Court held that the limitation period of 2 years as per Article 82 of the Limitation Period would be applicable since the act of the corporation was tortious in nature and not due to actions done in relation with the Corporation Act, 1957.