Negligence for falling signboard: control of the hazardous object can trigger liability despite act of God and permission defences.

A hazardous signboard falling from premises under a defendant's control can support liability in negligence under res ipsa loquitur and strict liability principles, because control over the dangerous object and a duty of care to users of the adjacent public pathway are key. The act of God defence fails where the weather event was foreseeable and not shown to be extraordinary, and the absence of municipal permission does not by itself negate civil liability. A criminal acquittal of the manager does not defeat civil negligence because the standards of proof differ. A separate appellate request for interest was not granted, as it had not been specifically pursued before the Single Judge.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Bank was liable in tort for negligence when its signboard fell on a passer-by, and whether the defence of act of God or absence of municipal permission under Section 143 could absolve it; (ii) whether the request for interest on compensation could succeed at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): whether the Bank was liable in tort for negligence when its signboard fell on a passer-by, and whether the defence of act of God or absence of municipal permission under Section 143 could absolve it.

Analysis: The material facts were not in dispute: the signboard fixed to the facade of the Bank's building came off and caused severe head injuries to a passer-by on a public pathway. On these facts, the Court applied the principles of res ipsa loquitur and strict liability, holding that the Bank had control over the hazardous object and owed a duty of care to users of the adjacent public passage. The defence of act of God failed because high-velocity winds in Delhi during May were foreseeable and not shown to be so extraordinary as to be unanticipated. The absence of permission under Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 did not alter the negligence finding, and the criminal acquittal of the Bank manager did not displace civil liability because the standards of proof in criminal and civil proceedings are different.

Conclusion: The Bank was held liable for negligence and the challenge to the finding of liability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the request for interest on compensation could succeed at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The claim for interest had not been specifically pursued before the Single Judge, and the compensation proceedings were still pending before that court. The appropriate course was left to the legal representatives to seek suitable relief before the Single Judge in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The request for appellate relief on interest was not granted.

Final Conclusion: The finding of negligence against the Bank was affirmed, and no appellate interference was warranted on the claim for interest, leaving the compensation proceedings to continue before the Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a hazardous object fixed to a building falls on a passer-by from premises under the defendant's control, negligence may be inferred under res ipsa loquitur and the defendant remains liable unless it proves a truly unforeseeable act of God.

---