NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW
RANCHI
LEGAL METHOD PROJECT
CASE ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF DELHI VS
SUBHAGWANTI & OTHERS
SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY –
MR. RABINDRA PATHAK
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SEMESTER – IV
SECTION - A
Page | 1
DECLARATION
This is to declare that the research project on “Case analysis of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti & others”, submitted to Mr. Rabindra
Pathak, Assistant Professor , National University of Study and Research in Law
is a record of an original work done by student Pratibha Singh Kavia of B.A.
L.L.B. (H), Batch 2020-25, and has been satisfactorily completed.
Page | 2
ABSTRACT
This paper will evaluate the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the leading case, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and from where the issue started till the judgment and
rule enforced by the judges. Through this case, various aspects of res ipsa loquitur and
whether this doctrine is relevant or not has been analyzed. This paper helps to understand
better about the doctrine as well as the case law and how a judgement can be interpreted. A
new concept was evolved through this case and was followed in the other similar cases and
this makes this research paper more informational and thoughtful.
Keywords: negligence, res ipsa loquitur, clock tower, maintenance, damages
FORUM Supreme Court of India
CASE Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti &
Others, AIR 1966 SC 1750
DECIDED ON 24th February, 1966
RULE OF LAW Principle of res ipsa
loquitur Where the circumstances surrounding the
thing which causes damage takes place exclusively at the material
time under the defendant’s control or management or his servant and it happens in a manner
that does not occur in the ordinary course of things without ignorance and negligence on the
defendant’s part.
Page | 3
FACTS
Respondents filed three suits for damages regarding collapse of the Clock Tower in Chandni
Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellant Corporation, formerly the Municipal Committee of
Delhi which resulted in the death of three persons. The building aged back to be 80 years old
and the life of the structure of the top storey, taking into regard the type of mortar used, could
be only 40 to 45 years and the middle storey could last to for another 10 years. The building
had passed its usual age at which the decay of the mortar could be expected. The collapse of
the tower was because of the thrust of the arches on the highest portion. If the building had
undergone an inspection by an expert specifically for the purpose he might have found out
that it was likely to get destroyed. When the building was inspected after the collapse it had
been found that it had deteriorated to such an extent that it had been reduced to powder with
none cementing properties.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial Court –
All the suits were tried by the court of subordinate Judge first class Delhi, who disposed of all
the suits by a standard judgment. All the suits were decreed. The Subordinate Judge granted a
decree for a sum of Rs 25000/- to Smt. Subhagwanti. It was held by the court that it had been
the duty of the Municipal Committee to require proper care of buildings in order that they
ought to not prove a source of threat to the person utilizing the highway as a matter of right.
The court rejected the plea of the Municipal Committee that within the case of latent defect it
couldn't be held liable and thus the Municipal Committee, because the owner of the buildings
abutting on the highway, was liable in negligence if it didn't take proper care to require care
of the buildings during a secure condition.
High Court –
Page | 4
The Municipal Committee filed the appeal against the judgment and decree of the court to
Punjab Supreme Court. A decree for Rs 25,000/- passed in favor of Smt. Subhagwanti was
maintained but it diminished the amount of damages within the other two cases. The Supreme
Court held that the principle of res-ipsa loquitur applied to cases the Supreme Court
considered that it had been the duty of the Municipal Committee to carry out periodical
examination for the aim of determining whether deterioration had taken place within the
structure and whether any precaution was necessary to strengthen the building. The Supreme
Court mainly relied on the evidence of Shri B.S. Puri, Retired Chief Engineer, PWD, and
Government of India who was invited to examine the tower after its collapse and who was
produced by them as their witness. The facts revealed in his statement and facts of Mr.
Chakravarty, the Municipal Engineer was that the building was 80 years old and therefore the
lifetime of the structure of the highest story, having reference to the sort of mortar used, might
be only 40 to 45 years and therefore the middle story might be saved for an additional 10
years. The tower Collapsed thanks to the thrust of the arches on the highest portion. Mr. Puri
was of the opinion that if an expert had examined this building specifically for the aim he may
need found that it had been likely to fall.
The Supreme Court –
Municipal Committee filed an appeal within the Supreme Court against the choice of the
Supreme Court.
The main question presented for determination in these appeals was whether the appellant
was negligent in taking care of and maintaining the tower and was susceptible to pay
damages for the death of the persons due to its fall.
Hon’ble Judges were of the opinion that the contention of the appellant that High Court was
wrong in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not correct. It is true that the traditional
rule is that it's for the plaintiff to prove negligence and for the defendant to disprove it. But
there's an exception to the present rule which applies where the circumstances surrounding
the thing which causes the damage are at the fabric time exclusively under the control or
management of the defendant or his servant and therefore the happening wouldn't have
occurred without negligence on the defendant’s part. Hence the rule of res ipsa loquitur
Page | 5
applies. The High Court has dealt with the evidence produced on the condition of the tower. It
appears that the tower was very old.
It was also not pleaded that the tower collapsed thanks to heavy rains, storms. Now the most
question arises, whether the appellant because the owner of the tower abutting on the
highway is sure to maintain it during a proper state of repairs so as to not cause any injury to
any member of the general public whether the defect is patent or latent. The appellant was the
owner of the tower. The legal position is that there's a special duty on the owner of
neighboring premises for the security of the structures which he keeps beside the highway. If
these structures fall into disrepair so they can be of potential danger to the passers-by on be a
nuisance, the owner is vulnerable to anyone using the highway that's injured by the rationale
of the disrepair.
According to the section I of the Fatal Accidents Act, the heirs of the deceased can maintain a
suit for damages if the death is caused thanks to other’s negligence.
According to Hon’ble Judges, the Supreme Court has applied the right principle within the
estimation of the damages altogether these cases. The learned Justices Honb’le Subba Rao
and Ramaswami did not see any reason to intervene with the judgment given by the High
Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will apply?
2. Whether the appellant, as an owner of the tower abutting on the highway, it’s
absolute to make sure of it during an accurate state of repairs so on not cause any
injury to any member of the general public using the highway and whether the
appellant is liable?
3. Whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect and is it taken as a
defense by the appellant?
Page | 6
4. Whether the appellant was negligent in taking care of and maintaining the tower
and was susceptible to pay damages for the death of the persons resulting from its
fall?
5. Whether the quantum of damages requires separate consideration in each case?
ARGUMENT
Argument of the Appellant –
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Supreme Court was wrong in applying the
doctrine of res-ipsa loquitur to the present case. It had been argued that the autumn of the
tower was thanks to an act of God that would not are prevented by the exercise of due care or
caution.
It was also submitted that there was nothing within the looks of the tower which should have
put the appellant on notice with regard to the probability of danger and also there are no
apparent signs on the structure which could have given a caution to the appellant that tower
would probably fall. It's contended that since the defects which led to the collapse of the
tower were latent, the appellant couldn't be held guilty of negligence.
Argument of the Court –
It was held by the court that it had been the duty of the Municipal Corporation to need proper
care of building, so as that they need to not prove a source of threat to persons utilizing the
highway as a matter of right. It had been submitted against the Municipal Committee that
aside from superficial examination of the tower from time to time by the Municipal Engineer,
no examination was ever made with a view to seeing if there have been any latent defects
making it unsafe.
The High Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to the case and thought of
that it had been the duty of the Municipal Committee to hold out periodical examination for
the aim of determining whether deterioration had taken place within the structure of the
Page | 7
building and whether any precaution was necessary to strengthen it. The witness disclosed
that when he inspected the building after the collapse and took the mortar in his hand he
acknowledged that it had deteriorated to such an extent that it had been reduced to powder
with none cementing properties.
Court implied that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in the circumstances as it has been
found that the Clock Tower was exclusively under the ownership and control of the appellant
or its servants. It is also not the case of the appellant that there was any earthquake or storm
or the other happening which was unforeseen. In these circumstances, the mere
incontrovertible fact that there was fall of the tower tells its own story in raising an inference
of negligence so on establish a major facie case against the appellant.
The legal position is that there is a special obligation on the owner of adjoining premises for
the protection of the structures which he keeps besides the highway. If these structures fall
into disrepair soon be of potential danger to the passers-by or to be a nuisance, the owner is
vulnerable to anyone using the highway that's injured by reason of the disrepair. In such a
case it's no defence for the owner to prove that he neither knew nor need to have known of
the danger. In other words, the owner is legally responsible regardless of whether the damage
is caused by a patent or a latent defect.
RULE
The high court was right in applying the doctrine res ipsa loquitur as within the circumstances
of the case the mere incontrovertible fact that there was a fall of the tower , which was
exclusively under the ownership and control of the appellant, would justify raising an
inference of negligence so on establish a clear case against the appellant. It’s true that the
traditional rule is that it's for the plaintiff to prove negligence and not for the defendant to
disprove it. But there's an exception to the present rule which applies where the circumstances
surrounding the thing which causes the damage are at the fabric time exclusively under the
control or management of the defendant or his servant and therefore the happening is like
doesn't occur within 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 overall rule that the burden of proof of the stated
Page | 8
negligence is within the primary instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already
established are such the proper and natural inference immediately arising from them is that
the injury complained of was caused by the defendant's negligence to those cases the maxim
res ipsa loquitur applies. Where the doctrine applies, a presumption of fault is raised against
the defendant, who, if he's to achieve his defense, must be overcome by contrary evidence,
the burden on the defendant being to point out how the act complained of could reasonably
happen without negligence on his part.
The high court has applied the right principle in estimation of the damages altogether the
three appeals according to-
Section I of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 reads:
Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, carelessness or mistake, and
thus the act would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to take care of an
action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would are liable if death had not
ensued shall be vulnerable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the
person injured, and although the death shall are caused under such circumstances as amount
in law to felony or other crime.
Every such action or suit shall be for the advantage of the wife, husband, parent and child, if
any of the individual whose death shall are so caused, and shall be brought by and within the
name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased; and in every
Page | 9
such action the court may give such damages because it might imagine proportioned to the
loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit
such action shall be brought; and therefore the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs
and expenses, including the prices not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided
amongst the before mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares because the Court by its
judgment or decree shall direct.
JUDGEMENT
Different appeals were dismissed. The judgment of the High Court was confirmed. Principles
of law laid down
1. It is a special obligation of the owner to adjoining premises for the security of the
structures which he keeps beside the highway.
2. If these structures fall into disrepair it is the owner’s duty to keep the said premises in
due repairs.
3. If due to disrepair any potential danger is caused to the passers-by the owner is liable
to anyone using the highway that is injured.
4. According to section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act, the heirs of the deceased can claim
the damages if death is caused due to other’s negligence.
5. It had been held by the Court of Appeals that the defendant was accountable for
negligence and that if owing to want of repairs premises on a highway become
dangerous and, therefore, an inconvenience and a bystander or an adjacent owner
suffers damage by the fall in of the occupier or the owner if he has undertaken the
duty of repair, is answerable whether he knew or go to have known of the danger or
not.
Page | 10
OPINION
In my opinion, this case is a classic example of how cases of negligence can be sort out by the
Court as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, clearly states that the facts are clear enough of a
case to decide the liability and damages. From the facts of this case, we can clearly presume
the negligence of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in handling the Clock Tower which was
impaired way before but because of lack of careful and systematic inspection which was duty
of the Corporation, the accident occurred as unavoidable.
In this case, the principle that premises on a highway are already very crucial to be taken care
of and it becomes dangerous condition owing to non-repair constitutes negligence got
highlighted. There is an absolute duty to prevent premises becoming a nuisance and it is no
defence whether the defect was latent.
Overall, in my opinion, this case was on point in determining liability and not giving defence
to the appellant without any substantial justification. The overall experience and observation
of mankind is sufficient to support the conclusion that the injury wouldn't have resulted
without negligence. Res ipsa loquitur states that it's reasonable that liability lies with
defendant and hence, no further evidence is required to be furnished. It is a mode of
inferential reasoning applies to accidents of unknown cause; one that would not happen
normally without negligence and whether or not the defendant had exclusive control of the
situation or instrument that caused the injury is an essential element.
RELEVANCY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur derived out of a case where the plaintiff undergoes injuries
from a falling barrel of flour while walking by a warehouse. At the trial, the plaintiff’s
attorney argued that the facts spoke for themselves and demonstrated the warehouse’s
negligence since no other explanation could account for the explanation for plaintiff’s
injuries.
As it has developed since then, res ipsa allows judges and juries to use sense to a situation so
as to work out whether or not the defendant acted negligently.
Page | 11
Res ipsa only allows plaintiffs to determine the inference of the defendant’s negligence, to not
prove the negligence completely. Defendants can still rebut the presumption of negligence
that res ipsa creates by refuting one among the weather.
A defendant could also indicate that the plaintiff’s own negligence furnished the injury. to
travel back to the flour-barrel example, if the defendant shows that the plaintiff was standing
in a neighborhood marked as dangerous it could rebut the presumption of negligence created
by res ipsa. The defendant could also establish that he did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care
under the law, or that the injury did not fall within the scope of the duty owed.
In the law of Torts, it is fundamental that the control of proving negligence rests on him who
alleges it. It’s consistently stated that negligence will never be assumed. Even if there is a
presumption of aiding the plaintiff, by a preponderance of the facts, he must still show the
defendant has been negligent. However, some courts consider the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
to symbolize the concept of evidence that removes such cases from this general rule. Courts
that dispute that this amounts to an exception, consider a res ipsa case as merely representing
a circumstance where the very fact and essence of the accident itself speaks, that is, offers
evidence of negligence, so as to alleviate the plaintiff of the initial obligation to prove
negligence, or rather, perhaps to discharge that duty on his part.
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies within the circumstances of this case. It is also not
the case of the appellant that there was any natural event which was unforeseen and which
could have been the cause of the fall of the Clock Tower. In these circumstances, the mere
incontrovertible fact that there was fall of the tower tells its own story in raising an
inference of negligence so on establish a prima facie case against the appellant.
Applying the principle to this case it is manifested that the appellant is guilty of negligence
due to the potential danger of the tower maintained by it having not been subjected to a
careful and systematic inspection which it had been the duty of the appellant to hold out.
Page | 12
REFERENCES
SCC Online, available at: www.scconline.com
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/706862/.
Page | 13
