9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted a decree of ₹ 90,000/- by way of compensation payable to the widow and the children of the deceased. Two Letters Patent Appeals were preferred. The Municipal Corporation sought for the suit being dismissed while the claimants sought for enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation but at the same time partly allowed the appeal preferred by the claimants enhancing the amount of compensation to ₹ 1,44,000/- payable with interest calculated at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit, i.e., 5.8.1966 till 17.9.1970 when the amount was deposited by the Corporation in the Court for payment to the successful claimants. The Division Bench also allowed interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum on ₹ 90,000/- from the date of deposit in the Court till the date of actual withdrawal of the amount by the claimants and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on ₹ 54,000/- from 17.9.1970 till payment. The reasons for the award of additional interest calculated at the rate of 3 per cent per annum on ₹ 90,000/- and the legality thereof we shall deal with separately. Both the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit. A bare reading of Section 478 (1) shows that its applicability is attracted to a suit filed `in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done' in pursuance of the Act or Rules, Regulations or Bye-laws made thereunder. The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that an act includes an omission as well. The Court has found an omission on the part of the Municipal Corporation in discharging its duty to take care and therefore under sub-Section (2) the limitation for filing the suit was six months from the date of accrual of cause of action, i.e., 18th and 19th August, 1964. The contention has to be rejected forthwith. The bundle of facts constituting the cause of action which has accrued to the claimants are -the ownership and possession of the tree vesting in the Corporation, its maintenance by the Corporation, fall of the branch of the tree over the deceased and the death consequent to the injury sustained. The causa proxima, i.e., the immediate cause of action is the fall of the branch of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If damage is done owing to the collapse of the projection on the highway or by some other mischief traceable to it, the occupier of the premises on which it stood is liable if he knew of the defect or ought, on investigation, to have known of it. At any rate this is the rule with respect to a thing that is naturally on the premises e.g. a tree. In Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (16th, 1989 ed., at pages 546-547 para 10.122) the law on trees is summarised as follows : The fall of trees, branches and other forms of natural growth is governed by the rules of negligence. When trees on land adjoining a public highway fall upon it, the owner is liable if he knew or ought to have known that the falling tree was dangerous. He is not bound to call in an expert to examine the trees, but he is bound to keep a look out and to take notice of such signs as would indicate to a prudent landowner that there was a danger of a tree falling..........the land-owner was held liable when the tree which fell had been dying for some years before and had become a danger which should have been apparent to an ordinary landowner. In Charlesworth Percy on Negligence (8th, 1990 ed., at page 668) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lordships. In our opinion the same principle is applicable to the owner of a tree standing by the side of a road. If the tree is dangerous in the sense that on account of any disease or being dead the tree or its branch is likely to fall and thereby injure any passer-by then such tree or branch must be removed so as to avert the danger to life. It is pertinent to note that it is not the defence of the Municipal Corporation that vis major or an act of God such as storm, tempest, lightning or extraordinary heavy rain had occurred causing the fall of the branch of the tree and hence the Corporation was not liable. In our opinion the High Court was right in holding the Municipal Corporation 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 the tree and the consequences flowing therefrom. The deceased was aged 30. He was employed in a family business wherefrom he was drawing a salary of ₹ 650 per month. The learned Trial Judge deducted an amount of ₹ 150 per month for expenses incurred on the self and assessed the dependency at ₹ 500 per month. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
