Municipal Authority is liable to pay compensation for injury cause due to fall of road-side tree

By a catena of decisions, the law is well settled that if there is a tree standing on the defendant's land which is dried or dead and for that reason may fall and the defect is one which is either known or should have been known to the defendant, then the defendant is liable for any injury caused by the fall of the tree (see Brown Vs. Harrison (1947) 63 Law Times Reports 484; Quinn Vs. Scott (1965) 1 W.L.R. 1004, Mackie Vs. Dumbartonshire County Council, (1927) W.N. 247. 

The duty of the owner/occupier of the premises by the side of the road whereon persons lawfully pass by, extends to guarding against what may happen just by the side of the premises on account of anything dangerous on the premises. The premises must be maintained in a safe state of repair. The owner/occupier cannot escape the liability for injury caused by any dangerous thing existing on the premises by pleading that he had employed a competent person to keep the premises in safe repairs. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Subhagwanti and Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1750 a clock tower which was 80 years old collapsed in Chandni Chowk Delhi causing the death of a number of persons. Their Lordships held that the owner could not be permitted to take a defence that he neither knew nor ought to have known the danger. "The owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect," - said their 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.

Petty quarrels arising in conjugal life does not amount to cruelty u/s. 498A IPC

With regard to the charge of Section 498A IPC against the appellant, the learned trial Judge did not assign any reason in his judgment as to why he found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. It is apparent on the face of the record that the appellant as well as his in laws belonged to the poor strata of society. It was, therefore, not unlikely that there would be discord and differences in the domestic life of the appellant. Petty quarrels arising out of such discord and differences in conjugal life would not amount to cruelty within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 498A IPC unless it is proved that the cruelty meted out to the wife was a willful conduct of the appellant which was likely to affect her normal mental frame and drive her to commit suicide out of depression or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or her mental or physical health. For establishing the commission of offence under clause (b) of Section 498A IPC, it has to be proved that the appellant or his relatives subjected his deceased wife to harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet his demands for dowry or such harassment was made due to the failure of her or her relatives to meet such demand. Now, we have to ascertain from the evidence recorded by the trial court as to whether prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Section 498A IPC to the accused. [Para No.47]

  In the case of Prwitish Datta and Ors.(supra) this High Court held that every case of harassment either by the husband or his family members to the wife cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A unless the conduct of the husband or his family members, as the case may be, is wilful and of such a grave nature which is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical. Similarly, in Gautam Nama (supra) which has also been relied upon by learned counsel of the appellant, this High Court observed that on the basis of mere omnibus statement without specific evidence regarding the particulars of the instances of such torture or cruelty, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 498A IPC. In the case of Dhananjoy Shil (supra) also it was held by this Court that a single incident of assault may not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC because cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A is different from other statutory provisions and it is to be established against the appellant that he subjected his wife to cruelty continuously and persistently. It was also held that petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.[Para No.48]