Q: Delineate the citation of Municipal Corporation, Delhi V. Subhagwanti, 1966 ?

Ans: 

LEADING CASE: MUNICIPAL CORPN., DELHI v SUBHAGWANTI ("CLOCK-TOWER CASE") (AIR 1966 SC 1750)

In case, due to the collapse of the Clock Tower situated opposite to Town Hall in the main bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi, a number of persons died. The Clock Tower belonged to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was exclusively under its control. The trial court held that it was the duty of Municipal Committee to take proper care of the building so that they should not prove a source of danger to the persons using the highway as a matter of right.

The High Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to case that it was the duty of the Municipal Committee to carry out the periodical examination for the purpose of determining whether deterioration had taken place in the structure of building and whether any precaution was necessary to strengthen it. The court found from the evidence that apart from superficial examination from time to time, there was no evidence of an examination ever made with a view to seeing if there were any latent defects making the building unsafe.

In an appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant's contention was that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur do not apply to the case; that the fall of clock tower was due to an inevitable accident which could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care or caution; and that since the defects which led to the collapse were latent, the appellant could not be held guilty of negligence.

The issue before the Apex Court was whether the Municipal Committee was negligent in looking after and maintaining the clock tower and was liable to pay damages for the death of the persons resulting from its fall.

The Supreme Court observed that the normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence and not for the defendant to disprove it. But there is an exception to this rule which applies where the circumstances surrounding the thing which causes the damage are at the material time exclusively under the control or management of the defendant or his servants and the happening is such as does not occur in the ordinary course of things without negligence on the defendant's part.

It was held that the High Court was right in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the circumstances of the present case. The clock tower belonged to the Municipal Corporation and was exclusively under its control. It was 80 years old but the life of the structure of the top storey of the building, which had fallen , could be 40-45 years having regard to the kind of mortar used. There was evidence of the Chief Engineer that tbe mortar was deteriorated to such an extent that it was reduced to power without any cementing properties. It was not the case of appellant that there was any earthquake or storm or any other natural event which was unforeseen and which could have been the cause of the fall of the clock tower.

Held, that the fall of clock tells its own story in raising an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. The court further held corporation guilty of negligence for not subjecting the clock tower to careful and systematic inspection which it was the duty of the corporation. Since the defendants could not prove absence of negligence on their part they were held liable.

The Supreme Court explained the legal position as: "There is a special obligation on the owner of the adjoining premises for the safety of the structures which he keeps beside the highway. If these structures fall into disrepair so as to be of potential danger to the passerby or to be a nuisance, the owner is liable to anyone using the highway that is injured by reason of the disrepair. In such a case, it is no defence for the owner to prove that he neither knew nor ought to have known of the danger. In other words, the owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the danger is caused by a patent or latent (hidden) defect."