2023 (2) TMI 653 - HC - Indian Laws

Bank Negligence Finding Upheld in Signboard Case, Emphasizing Foreseeability

M/s BANK OF BARODA & ANR. Versus MAHESH GUPTA & ORS. (VICE-VERSA)

The court upheld the finding of negligence against the Bank for failing to maintain a signboard, leading to a fatal accident. The Bank's argument of ... Compensation sought by deceased writ petitioner, who suffered a head injury as a result of the Bank's sign board falling on his head - HELD THAT:- Since the Bank, had control over the signboard which fell on the deceased writ petitioner's head, causing serious injuries and it had neither periodically inspected nor put in place a protocol for monitoring the maintenance of the signboard which was fixed on the façade of the building, the occurrence of the accident, in law, was attributable, in this case to the defendant. Furthermore, the coming off of the signboard, given its size and location, had the potentiality of causing harm and injury to a passer-by who crossed the public pathway which abutted the building. In that sense, the Bank owed a duty of care to every passer-by, which was breached as it failed to aver that it had periodically carried out inspections and monitored the maintenance of the signboard - Besides this the defence of act of God/vis major available to ward off the strict liability cast under the common law principle was also not available since the hazard presented by a signboard coming off the façade of the building was a foreseeable event given the fact that Delhi experiences high-velocity winds, in May, each year. There are no merit in the appeal preferred by the Bank - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Negligence and award of compensation.2. Requirement of permission under Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.3. Application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.4. Act of God (vis major) as a defense.5. Relevance of the acquittal in the criminal case.6. Admission of additional documents.7. Award of interest on compensation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Negligence and Award of Compensation:The deceased writ petitioner suffered a head injury due to the Bank's signboard falling on his head. The Bank argued that the issue of negligence and compensation involved disputed facts requiring evidence and expert opinion, which could not be decided in a writ action. The court, however, held that the primary facts were not in dispute, and the Bank was guilty of negligence. The Bank had a duty of care to periodically inspect and maintain the signboard. The court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and concluded that the Bank was negligent.2. Requirement of Permission under Section 143 of the DMC Act:The Bank contended that the signboard was not an advertisement and thus did not require prior permission from the Municipal Corporation. The court found that the signboard's size and nature suggested it was an advertisement, requiring permission under Section 143 of the DMC Act. However, the court noted that even if permission was not required, the Bank's failure to maintain the signboard still constituted negligence.3. Application of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur:The court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means that the occurrence of the accident itself implies negligence. The court noted that the signboard falling from the Bank's building was an event that would not normally occur without negligence. The Bank had control over the signboard and failed to demonstrate that it had a protocol for its maintenance.4. Act of God (Vis Major) as a Defense:The Bank argued that the signboard fell due to high-velocity winds, an act of God. The court rejected this defense, stating that high-velocity winds in Delhi in May are a foreseeable event. The Bank should have anticipated this and ensured the signboard was securely fastened.5. Relevance of the Acquittal in the Criminal Case:The Bank's manager was acquitted in a criminal case related to the incident. The court held that the standard of proof in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) is different from a civil case (preponderance of probability). Therefore, the acquittal did not absolve the Bank of its civil liability for negligence.6. Admission of Additional Documents:The Bank filed an application to admit additional documents, including the judgment of acquittal. The court dismissed the application, noting that the documents were filed too late. The court found that the additional documents would not have changed the conclusion of negligence.7. Award of Interest on Compensation:The cross-appeal by the deceased writ petitioner's legal representatives sought interest on the compensation. The court noted that the issue of interest was not raised before the learned Single Judge. The court suggested that the legal representatives could file an appropriate application before the Single Judge to seek interest.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Bank's appeal, upholding the finding of negligence and the award of compensation. The cross-appeal regarding interest was closed with the observation that the legal representatives could approach the Single Judge with an appropriate application. The court directed the release of the deposited compensation amount to the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner.