Trace Your Case

RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. MANJULBEN JAYANTILAL NAKUM

Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 (9) SCC 552, 601

ISSUE:

  • Whether the Municipal Corporation owes a duty of care with respect to maintaining the public trees due to statutory obligation?
  • Whether the death of Jayantilal was a direct cause of the negligence of the corporation thus triggering tortious liability?

RULE:

  • The court has the duty to determine if the widening the scope of duty of care is in consonance or goes against public policy. Duty is subjective to facts and circumstances of each care and is dependent on interpretation of the law, predictability and proximity.
  • Negligence is inclusive of both actions and omissions, which necessitates a violation of duty that ends up in an injury. A violation of statutory obligation may end up in tortious liability if the legal provisions entitle a personal action right.
  • Public officials are usually not liable for omissions but are rather liable for wrong acts, unless the law orders an obligation on the public authority to act.

FACTS:

  • Jayantilal, the deceased, was walking to his office on the footpath when a tree on the road fell on his head on 25.03.75. As a result of the injuries, he died.
  • His survivors field for compensation and damages of Rs 1,00,000 from the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. However the trial court awarded only Rs 45,000 and held the corporation guilty of failing to fulfill their duty of checking on the health of the trees.
  • The Division Bench of the High Court held the corporation guilty of negligence since they had a statutory duty to ensure that trees in public are maintained to be in good condition.
  • The Division Bench held that the corporation had an absolute duty to conduct inspections and checks with respect to the health of the trees, which in this case was not followed.
  • The Division Bench ordered the corporation to pay damages to the family of the deceased. The Rajkot Municipal Corporation field a special leave to the Supreme Court to appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the municipal court and set aside the decision of the trial court and directed non retrieval of the compensation amount of Rs 45,000 from the survivors of the deceased considering their financial situation.
  • The Supreme Court held that the duty to plant trees is a discretionary duty, not a mandatory duty bestowed on the corporation and that no action will lie for a breach of said duty. The corporation can be held liable only if the law has explicitly mentioned for remedy for such a breach.
  • The Supreme Court held that negligence cannot be simply due to unintentional recklessness unless the law requires a particular action. It held that public official can be liable for acts caused within the functional area but not for acts done by them in good intention and with no malafide intentions.
  • The court held that if the law fails to provide for any remedy, the court should grant punishment rather than personal compensation. On the contrary, if the law has the intention to safeguard individuals from any explicit damage, then damages can be given.
  • The Supreme Court held that the court has to check the relationship between the plaintiff and respondent with respect to proximity since liability can be forced only if there are justifiable reasons.