Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
BLJ 2.1 Tortious Liability
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati (1966 SC) Case Analysis
Submitted by
Naman Sharma
UGJ22-37
B.A. LL.B (Hons. in Adjudication and Justicing)
SEMESTER- 2
ACADEMIC SESSION- 2022-27
Submitted to
Dr. Rahul Sangaonkar
List of Acronyms & Abbreviation
AIR
All India Reporter
Cr. L. J.
Criminal Law Journal
HC
High Court
IPC
Indian Penal Code
MCD
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
v.
Versus
WLR
Weekly Law Reports
2
List of Cases
Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
5, 10
Bindra Devi Chauhan v. State of H.P
15
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co
13
Donoghue v. Stevenson
10
Dabron v. Bath Tramways
13
Dr. Narayana k. Swamy v. A. Nazir Ahmad Khan and others
14
Fardon v. Harcourt
12
Glasgow Corpn. v. Muir
12
Heaven v. Pender
12
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Suresh Kumar
14
Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd
13
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Albert Disa
14
Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi
12
Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
12
Wringe v. Cohen
9
3
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….5-6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………6
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES …………………………………………………………………….6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS……………………………………………………………………..7
BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE….……………………7-8
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT……………………………………………………………….8
DECISION OF THE COURT……………………………………………………………….8-10
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………..10-16
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS……………………………………………………....16
4
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati (1966 SC), Case Analysis
-
Naman Sharma1
INTRODUCTION
It is well known that English common law serves as the foundation for Indian tort law. As a
result, Indian courts establish and alter negligence legislation according to the principles of
justice, equity, and morality. The Indian tort law became more significant under British rule. The
notion of compensation for a person harmed by an illegal conduct was also governed by British
law. The most common cause of tort litigation in India and internationally is negligence, which
has been dubbed the modern tort par excellence. The most major source of tort litigation, both in
India and internationally, is the tort of negligence, which has long been seen as the most cuttingedge offence possible. There is no exact definition for the legal concept of negligence. 2 It is
believed that renowned judges and eminent jurists have given different definitions of negligence.
The Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab,3 observed :
“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which
a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the
use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the
duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has
suffered injury to his person or property.”
The concept of negligence includes three elements: (1) a legal obligation on the part of the party
complained of to exercise reasonable care in relation to the party complaining the former's
conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) a breach of the said obligation; and (3) resultant
damage. According to Arthur Underhill, negligence is the "inability to maintain the degree of
care that somebody of common judiciousness would have applied under the comparative
arrangement of conditions."4Negligence is defined in two ways: subjectively as the absence of
something, and objectively as a conduct that undermines one's obligation to treat others with
care. It is now widely acknowledged that new responsibility circumstances can be recognised
due to the ongoing effect of social, political, and economic reasons, even though the existence of
a duty is resolved based on prior precedents. The fundamental principle of negligence is that
people should conduct with reasonable care, accounting for any potential harm they may
unavoidably do to others.5 In Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Subhagwanti6, one of the most
1
1st year student, B.A. LL.B (Hons. In Adjudication and Justicing), Maharashtra National Law University Nagpur
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3180
3
Ibid., quoting Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Tom, 2002, 441-42.
4
Arthur Underhill, “A SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF TORTS”, (10th ed. 1932).
5
Feinman, Jay (2010). Law 101. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978019539513-6.
6
Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Subhagwanti, 1966 (AIR 1966 SC 1750)
2
5
crucial elements of torts—"negligence"—is discussed. This is another significant case that the
Supreme Court of India has ruled using the res ipsa loquitur principle.
Generally speaking, the burden of establishing carelessness on the side of the defendant rests
with the plaintiff. There are, however, some situations in which the plaintiff need not make such
proof because negligence can be inferred from the circumstances. According to the maxim "res
ipsa loquitur," which means "the thing speaks for itself," there is a presumption of negligence.
The law presumes carelessness on the part of the defendant when the accident only explains one
thing, namely that the accident could not have happened without the defendant's negligence. In
such a situation, the plaintiff only needs to provide evidence of an accident.7 However, the
defendant may escape liability by demonstrating that he was not negligent. The incident that led
to the accident has to be under the defendant's control in order for the maxim "res ipsa loquitur"
to be applicable. The maxim is therefore applicable, and the burden of proof is shifted from the
plaintiff to the defendant, when the circumstances surrounding the event that causes the damage
are, at the relevant time, solely under the control or management of the defendant or his servant
and the happening is such that it does not ordinarily occur without the defendant's negligence.
Instead of the plaintiff demonstrating negligence, the defence must contest it. It is not legal to
abide by the maxim. By removing the burden of proof from the plaintiff, this rule of evidence
benefits the plaintiff. The theory is applicable where the defendant's negligence was more likely
to cause the accident than any other factor and when the defendant knew or should have known
the facts but the plaintiff did not. An attempt has been made to understand the concept of
negligence through the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti8 and to use the
right standard while evaluating damages.
RESEARCH METHODOLY
The study is solely based on taking reference from the material available on the concerned topic
on internet. The material includes various Articles, Books, Case laws etc. The researcher has not
done any primary research but analyses about the topic concerned and his opinion regarding the
same. The Doctrinal research methodology is adopted in the proposed research project to analyze
the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti 1966.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES




7
8
To analyze the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti 1966.
To explore the issues involved in the concerned case.
To examine the concepts connected with the concerned case.
To examine how this case became one of the landmark case of Negligence under the Law
of Torts.
Pushpabhai v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1735, at 1739
Ibid
6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS


How the concept of negligence was interpreted in the case of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Subhagwanti.
How the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was applied in the case of Municipal Corporation
of Delhi v. Subhagwani.
BRIEF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti, the heirs of three people who
died as a result of the fall of the clock tower belonging to the appellant, previously the Municipal
Committee of Delhi, which was located opposite the Town Hall in Chandni Chowk's main
bazaar, filed lawsuits for damages in this case. According to the trial court's ruling, the
Municipal Committee had a responsibility to maintain the buildings so that they wouldn't
endanger those who were legally utilizing the highway. The trial court rejected the Municipal
Committee's argument that it could not be held responsible for latent faults but that, as the owner
of the building next to the roadway, it was negligent if it failed to take reasonable care to keep
the buildings in a safe state. Before the trial Court, it was claimed against the Municipal
Committee that, except from the occasional superficial inspection of the Clock Tower by the
Municipal Engineer, no examination had ever been done to see whether there were any latent
flaws that might have made it unsafe. The Municipal Committee appealed the trial court's ruling
in each of the three cases to the High Court after being upset by the ruling. The High Court ruled
that the res ipsa loquitur principle applied in this instance. According to the High Court, it was
the Municipal Committee's responsibility to conduct routine inspections in order to assess
whether any deterioration had occurred in the building and whether any safety measures were
required. The Municipal Committee requested Shri B.S. Puri, Retired Chief Engineer, P.W.D.,
Government of India, to inspect the Clock Tower after its collapse, and they produced him as
their witness. The Municipal Committee then called Puri as a witness. The building was 80 years
old, and according to Mr. Chakravarty, the municipal engineer, the top storey's structure could
only last 40 to 45 years due to the type of mortar used, while the middle level may be preserved
for an additional 10 years. The High Court also took into account Mr. Puri's assertion that the top
portion's arches were shoved during the collapse of the Clock Tower. Mr. Puri claims that if an
expert had examined this building specifically for that reason, he might have found that it was
prone to collapsing. The witness further stated that after the building collapsed, he examined the
mortar with his hands and found that it had degraded to the point of being reduced to powder and
had lost all cementing properties. The High Court determined that the res ipsa loquitur principle
applied in this case and that the Municipal Committee was required to conduct periodic
inspections to ascertain whether there had been any deterioration in the building's structure and
whether any preventative measures were required to strengthen it. There was no indication that a
thorough study was ever conducted in order to determine whether the structure had any
7
underlying flaws that may make it unsafe, except from the occasional superficial inspection. It
was argued on behalf of the appellant in the appeal to the Supreme Court that
“the High Court erred in using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in this case and
that the clock tower's collapse was caused by an unavoidable accident that could
not have been avoided by the use of reasonable care or caution; that since the
flaws that caused the collapse were latent, the appellant could not be held liable
for negligence; and that in any case, the damage to the clock tower was
inevitable.”
The defendant's fault under these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided, can be inferred
from the fact that the Clock Tower collapsed. Because the defendants were unable to
demonstrate that they were not negligent, they were deemed responsible.9
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT




Whether the defendant was liable for the deaths of the people caused by the fall of the
Clock Tower because of negligence in the care and maintenance of the tower?
Is the petitioner, as the owner of the clock tower on the highway, required to make sure
the clock tower is in a sufficiently poor condition so that it does not harm any segment of
society while on the highway?
Does the degree of destruction necessitate a different analysis regardless of whether the
pleader is at fault for a latent or patent defect?
Does the current lawsuit fall within the legal doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor, and if so,
does the constitutional concept of nonfeasance apply?
DECISION OF THE COURT
The accepted knowledge is that in order to prove carelessness, the plaintiff must do so, and the
defendant must not dispute it. There is an exception to this rule, though, and it applies when the
situation that leads to the damage-causing event is at the pertinent time entirely under the
defendant's or his servant's control or management and the incident does not occur in the regular
course of events without the defendant's negligence. The principle has been clearly expressed in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 23, at p. 671 as follows:
“An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged
negligence is within the initial instance on the plaintiff which occurs wherever the
facts already established are such that the proper and natural thesis immediately
arising from them is that the injury, complained was caused by the defendant’s
negligence, or where the event charged as negligence tells its own story’ of
negligence on the part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and not open
9
R.K. Bangia, The Law of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency, Ed. 22nd, 2010
8
to more than one interpretation. To these form of cases, the maxim res ipsa
loquitur applies. Where the rule applies, a presumption of fault is raised against
the defendant, which, if he is to succeed in his defence, must be overcome by
contrary evidence, the burden on the defendant being to show how the act
complained of could reasonably happen without negligence on his part.”
According to the law, the owner of neighboring properties has a unique responsibility for the
security of the buildings that he maintains next to the highway. The owner is responsible for
anyone using the roadway who suffers harm as a result of the structures' degradation if they
deteriorate to the point that they could endanger onlookers or become a nuisance. The owner's
ability to demonstrate that he neither knew about the risk nor should have known about it is not a
defence in such a situation. In other words, regardless of whether a patent or latent flaw resulted
in the damage, the owner is legally liable. In the case of Wringe v. Cohen,10the plaintiff was the
proprietor of a lock-up shop in Sheffield's Proctor Place, while Cohen, the defendant, owned the
house next door. The accused rented out his property to a tenant who lived there for around two
years. It appears that during a storm, the corner of the defendant's house collapsed, falling
through the plaintiff's store's roof. There was proof that the defendant's house's corner wall had
become dangerous for nearby property owners and onlookers due to a lack of maintenance. The
Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant was liable for negligence and that the occupier or
owner, if he has taken on the duty of repair, is responsible whether he knew or ought to have
known of the danger if a property on a highway becomes hazardous and, consequently, a
nuisance and a bystander or an adjacent owner sustains damage from the collapse.
However, “the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that the defendant was negligent—
either by direct or circumstantial evidence—even if direct evidence of negligence is not required
in these circumstances. In this instance, the appellant was unable to make the claim that the clock
tower was brought down by an unanticipated earthquake, storm, or other natural phenomenon. In
these conditions, the simple fact that the Clock Tower collapsed implies negligence and provides
a prima facie case against the appellant. Given that the building had reached the typical age at
which the mortar may be expected to degrade, it was the appellant's responsibility to conduct a
thorough and routine assessment to ascertain whether degradation had occurred and whether any
safety measures were necessary to strengthen the structure.”
The laws in place go into great detail to define the term "negligence" and the situations in which
it applies. It may be inferred that the Indian Court explicitly followed common law tort
principles, as established by the English courts. The court made the appropriate decision when it
determined that the defendant was culpable for the deaths of the victims and must pay damages
because of the Clock Tower's collapse due to irresponsible management and care of the structure.
The appellant, who is the owner of the clock tower on the highway, was ordered to maintain it in
a proper condition of repair so that no significant harm could be done to any member of the
10
Wringe v. Cohen, 1940 1 K.B. 229
9
general public who used the route, the court further found. However, it is intended that policies
would be created and carried out in a way that does not infringe on the rights of a different
regulatory framework, the Indian Constitution.
Ratio by Supreme Court:
SC rejected arguments of appellant (MCD). [Argument of appellant- HC wrongly used res ipsa
loquitur. It was inevitable which could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable
care].
SC said, “We know that in a normal case of negligence, burden of proof lies on
Plaintiff/aggrieved, but this is the case of res ipsa loquitur because circumstances of this
accident were exclusively under control of MCD.”
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
Even the statute is based on the ideas of fairness and equal opportunity because the "Law of
Torts is based on the Common Law system." The Indian judiciary accepts and upholds
reasonableness. By the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, the High Court
made an effort to understand the concept of negligence and apply the right criterion when
determining the damages.
The term "negligence" is used to impose obligation on the defendant under both civil law and, on
occasion, criminal law. In tort law, the extent of liability is typically determined by the amount
of losses sustained; but, in criminal law, liability is determined by the quantity and degree of
negligence, not the amount of damages. Distinguishing between "Negligence" as a tort and as a
crime, the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, observed:
“To fasten liability in Criminal Law, the degree of negligence has to be higher
than that of negligence enough to fasten liability for damages in Civil Law. The
essential ingredient of mens rea cannot be excluded from consideration when the
charge in a criminal court consists of criminal negligence.”
In tort law, negligence has two definitions:
(1) The use of negligence as a means of committing certain torts, such as when trespassing,
creating a nuisance, or defaming someone. It refers to the mental component in this case.
(2) The tort of negligence is treated separately. Instead of a state of mind, it refers to behaviour
that raises the possibility of harm. When there is a responsibility to exercise care, the House of
Lords stated in Donoghue v. Stevenson11 that negligence "treats carelessness as specific tort in
11
(1932) A.C. 562.
10
itself, and not just as an ingredient in some more complex connection or in some specialised
breach of duty."12
It is in the second sense that it has been discussed below: As stated in Heaven v. Pender,13
“actionable consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom
the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff
has suffered injury, to person or property.”
The word "negligence" in common usage refers to simple carelessness. Second, it denotes a
failure to exercise the standard of care that the doer as a reasonable man should have in the
circumstances, according to the law; if there is no legal obligation to take care, lack of care has
no legal repercussions. In general, when it was or should have been fairly foreseeable that failing
to do so was likely to result in harm, there is a legal duty to exercise caution. Hence, failure to
take the necessary steps that should have been taken under the circumstances to avoid or prevent
that harm is negligence as opposed to knowingly or deliberately creating that harm. Hence, even
though a man made an effort to be careful and was not reckless, he may nevertheless cause harm
if the court determines that his level of caution was insufficient given the circumstances.
Thirdly, “the term negligence in English law refers to a specific type of tort, the tort of failing to
exercise the care that should have been displayed under the circumstances, the care of a
reasonable man, and causing injury to another person or damage to their property as a result. It
suggests that there is a legal obligation to exercise care owing to the complainant, which is
generally the case when two people are in close proximity to one another and one of them is
likely to act carelessly. A failure to exercise the standard of care deemed appropriate in the
circumstances, which is typically defined as reasonable care but may be higher in specific
circumstances, e.g., the airline pilot, the surgeon operating, a causal connection between the
failure to exercise care and the injury suffered, not interrupted by the intervention of another
causal factor, and not too remotely connected with the ultimate harm, and actual loss, injury, or
damage.”
“In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following essentials:



That the defendant owed duty of care to the plaintiff;
The defendant made a breach of that duty;
The plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof.”
Duty of care to the plaintiff
12
Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills, (1936) A.C. 85, at 103, per Lord Wright; Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co. Ltd. v.
Mc. Mullan, (1934) A.C. I, 35; Nicholl v. Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd., (1936) Ch. 343, 351 : "In strict legal analysis
negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission : It properly connotes
the complex concept of duty, breach and damages thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing."
Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co. v. Mc. Mullan, (1934) A.C. I, at 25, per Lord Wright
13
(1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503
11
In order to be found accountable for carelessness, there must be a duty situation or a duty to
exercise care. It denotes a legal obligation as opposed to merely a moral, religious, or social one.
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a specific legal obligation to care for him,
which he has broken. Yet, it is now widely acknowledged that novel duty circumstances can be
recognised. Typically, the existence of a duty situation in a given instance is evaluated on the
basis of previous precedents covering similar situations. The defendant's ability to reasonably
predict the plaintiff's injury determines whether or not they owe the plaintiff an obligation.
According to the ruling in Heaven v. Pender, a person only has a duty to protect another's person
or property if they are closer to it. Finding out what a "Reasonable Man" (a guy of average
prudence or intelligence) would have predicted and done in the situation is a good test for
determining guilt. The objective or impersonal criteria is the reasonable man's criterion of
foresight. Nonetheless, there is a subjective component to the implementation of the reasonable
man standard of care.
In Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi, the driver of a bus that was packed to capacity
allowed passengers to ride on the vehicle' roof. A tree limb that was hanging over the bus hit one
of the passengers who was riding on the roof. He died when he collapsed. It was decided that the
bus conductor and driver had both engaged in negligence.
The plaintiff in Sushma Mitra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was leaning her elbow
against the window sill. Her elbow was struck by a truck travelling in the opposite direction,
severely injuring her. It was decided that the driver had a responsibility to pass other vehicles on
the road safely.
The defendant is not held responsible if the plaintiff's injury was not foreseeable. In Glasgow
Corpn. v. Muir, the proprietors of the defendant corporation tearooms permitted a picnic party to
eat in the tearoom. A big urn containing 6 to 9 litres of tea was being moved by two picnickers
from a hallway where children were buying ice cream to a tearoom. One of the individuals
suddenly lost control of the urn's handle, injuring six children, including the plaintiff. It was held
that because the supervisors could not have foreseen the incident, she was not required to take
any safety precautions. As a result, neither she nor the company could be held accountable.
It is not sufficient to show that the injury was predictable in order to establish negligence. But it
must also be demonstrated that the harm is likely to occur. Instead of focusing on thin,
improbable, or fantastic possibilities, the obligation is to take precautions against plausible
probability.
In Fardon v. Harcourt, the defendant left his dog inside the car when he parked by the side of the
road. The canine ran out and broke a glass panel. The plaintiff was hurt by a splinter from this
glass as he was passing the car. Judged that the defendant was not at fault because the accident
was extremely unlikely.
12
The plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit even if he might have been harmed by the defendant's
behaviour where the defendant owes a duty of care to other people rather than the plaintiff.
Hence, the plaintiff must be due the duty.
Breach of Duty
A duty breach occurs when the appropriate care is not exercised in a certain circumstance. What
level of care is necessary? The standard is that of a prudent man acting within the bounds of
reason. There is no negligence if the defendant operated in a prudent and reasonable manner. As
stated by Alderson B. in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.,14
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would
not do.”
According to the law, two factors must be considered when determining the required standard of
care:
The significance of the object to be attained: Under certain conditions, the law only requires the
care that would be reasonable and wise for a man of ordinary intelligence. Depending on the
specific situation, different levels of care, competence, diligence, and the like are required. The
guy who has learned the unique skill necessary to do the act he undertakes is typically the
prudent one; a man who has not learned that special skill is imprudent in undertaking to complete
the act, no matter how meticulous he may be or how talented he may be in other areas. The law
allows for a certain amount of risk-taking so that certain activities can be carried out in the public
interest.
According to Dabron v. Bath Tramways, while limiting all trains in this country to a speed of
five miles per hour might result in fewer accidents, it would significantly slow down our national
life. If the intended objective is significant enough, taking on the unusual risk is justified.
So, it is necessary to strike a balance between the significance and utility of a given action and
the risk that results from it. Hence, driving at a specific speed may not constitute negligence for a
fire department truck but may do so for another vehicle.
In Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd., a factory was flooded with water that mingled with some greasy
substances as a result of severe rain. The factory's floors started to become slick. The plant
owners distributed all of the sawdust that was available, but some greasy areas persisted. The
plaintiff fell and sustained injuries. It was decided that because the defendants had acted
appropriately, they were not culpable.
14
2. (1856) II Ex. 781, 784
13
The magnitude of risk
Depending on the circumstances, varying levels of care are necessary. What might be a prudent
action in one circumstance might be a careless action in another. Under all circumstances, the
law does not require the same level of caution. The safeguards that the defendant is expected to
take depend on the type of risk involved. In Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Albert
Disa15, Venkataramiah, J. provided the following explanation of the situation: Failure to use
reasonable care is negligence. The word "due" refers to the level of caution that a reasonable
person would use in a specific set of circumstances. What may be a "negligent" act in one
location and circumstance may not be a negligent act in another location or circumstance. One
helpful criteria for determining the level of caution required by a certain circumstance is to
determine how clear the risk would have been to a normal, wise guy.
The level of caution depends on the size of the risk that a sensible and wise individual may have
anticipated. So, while it is raining, the driver of a vehicle should exercise more caution. 16 A
person with a loaded gun is expected to use greater caution than someone with a regular stick.
Transporting flammable and hazardous products calls for more caution than carrying regular
goods. Similar to how more care must be used when moving petrol than when transporting milk
or water. As a result, "there is no absolute norm, but generally speaking, the level of care
necessary varies directly with the danger involved. Hence, even though a man made an effort to
be careful and was not reckless, he may nevertheless cause harm if the court determines that his
level of caution was insufficient given the circumstances.17
In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Suresh Kumar18, a little kid was electrocuted and suffered
burn injuries after coming into contact with an overhead electric wire that had sagged to 3 feet
above the ground. The overhead line has to remain 15 feet above the ground, according to the
Electricity Board's obligation. The Board was held accountable for failing to uphold the law.
Damage to the plaintiff
In addition to demonstrating negligence, the plaintiff must also show that the negligent act
caused losses to him. The defendant will not be held responsible if the injury is not the
immediate and direct result of the negligent act but rather is remote.
There must be a connection between the wrongdoing and the harm caused in order to prove
negligence. The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating this connection. There may be
additional causes that might be considered while making this connection. The "but for" test
15
A.I.R. 1973 Mysore 240, at 242
Satyawati Devi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 Delhi 98.
17
Glasgow Corporation v. Muir, (1943), A.C. 448, at 456; (1943) 2 All E.R. 44, at 48, per Lord Macmillan
18
1986 ACJ 998.
16
14
focuses on the actual source of harm rather than all potential causes of an incident in order to
determine who is to blame for the damage.19
In Dr. Narayana k. Swamy v. A. Nazir Ahmad Khan and others,20 the deceased was taken to the
hospital with severe headache and vomiting. Presence of disease known was SAH (Subarchnoid
Haemorrhased) was diagnosed. No angiograme test was conducted despite doctor’s opinion that
such test is imperative to find out the clues pertaining to the presence of SAH. However, lumber
puncture test was carried out there. The patient died. It was held that the postponing of
angiograme test was considered as an act of negligence and the deceased was awarded Rs. One
Lakh as damages.
Proof of Negligence: Res Ipsa LoquiturRes ipsa loquitur, which translates to "the thing speaks for itself," is a Latin expression.
It is regarded as a sort of circumstantial evidence that enables the court to decide that the
defendant's negligence resulted in an exceptional event that later injured the plaintiff. Although
in most cases it is the plaintiff's responsibility to establish that the defendant behaved carelessly,
if the plaintiff provides specific circumstantial circumstances, it shifts to the defendant's
responsibility to demonstrate that the defendant was not negligent.
Thus the flowing are the three essential requirements for the application of this maxim


The thing causing the damage must be under the control of the defendant or his servants.
The accident must be such as would not have happened in the ordinary course of things
without negligence.
There must be no evidence of the actual cause of the accident.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti21, many people died as a result of the clock
tower's collapse at Chandni Chowk's main bazaar, which was located across from the town hall.
The clock tower was owned and operated entirely by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Despite being 80 years old, the top floor of the fallen structure had a standard lifespan of 40 to 45
years, depending on the type of mortar used. The Supreme Court concluded in these
circumstances that the defendant's recklessness can be inferred from the fact that the Clock
Tower toppled. The defendants were held liable because they were unable to show that they were
not negligent.
In Bindra Devi Chauhan v. State of H.P., state officials began excavating near the plaintiff's
property in order to construct a playground on one side of the petitioner's residence. The
defendants' reckless and unlawful excavations caused the petitioner's house to collapse. These
19
(2012) 1 Supreme Court Causes (FJ) 1: (2011) 1 current Law Journal 409 (FC)
2008 (NOC) 836 (Ker.)
21
A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1750.
20
15
excavations were revealed to be the source of the house's deterioration. Moreover, the defendants
did not construct any retaining walls while completing excavation operations. The plaintiff was
found to be entitled to compensation for the damage to her home, the protection of the site
through the construction of a breast wall, and the pain and suffering she had as a result of the
defendants' carelessness.
CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
The laws in force go into great detail in defining negligence and the situations that fall under its
purview. It was inferred that the Indian judicial system explicitly followed common law tort
principles, as established by the English courts. The court made the appropriate decision when it
determined that the defendant was culpable for the deaths of the victims as a result of its
carelessness in managing and treating the Clock Tower. The appellant, who is the owner of the
highway-side clock tower, was ordered by the court to maintain it in a proper condition of repair
so that no significant harm could be done to any member of the general public who utilised the
road. Yet, it is intended that policies would be created and carried out in a way that does not
infringe on the rights of a different regulatory framework, the Indian Constitution.
In order to exclude any further doubt regarding such topics when a similar issue arises, the High
Court elaborated and precisely defined the phrases "negligence" and "non-feasance" based on
several precedents and its experience. This nuanced judgement style is particularly dynamic and
well regarded in the judiciary. The researcher thinks that the Hon'ble Justices Ramaswami V. and
Subbarao K. should be commended for their amazing decision that intricately explains the
language. The judiciary places a great deal of weight on decisions like these since tort law
depends on judicial precedents. In the current judgement, all probable tortious liability
definitions of negligence were taken into account and combined into a single verdict. As a result,
India's Tort Law has been steadily evolving, and most of its advancement has not been in the
wrong direction.
******
16