What duty did the Municipal Corporation owe?

To promptly identify and handle old, dry or dangerous public trees and prevent harm to road users.

Which limitation period applied?

Two years under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the action was tortious negligence, not an act within Section 478 of the DMC Act.

Was negligence proved?

Yes. Expert evidence showed the neem tree was dry and dangerous; the Corporation knew or ought to have known and failed to act.

What compensation was upheld?

Rs 1,44,000 with 6% p.a. interest, applying a multiplier of 15 considering the deceased’s income.

What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?

Both appeals were rejected; the Division Bench’s findings on negligence and compensation were affirmed.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Smt Sushila Devi

```

Quick Summary

A dry neem branch fell on a scooter rider, who later died. The Court said the Municipal Corporation must actively detect and remove dangerous public trees. This was a case of tortious negligence.

On limitation, the Court applied Article 82 (2 years) of the Limitation Act, not the 6-month bar in Section 478 DMC Act, because the claim arose from negligence, not an act done under the statute.

Issues

Is MCD liable for death due to failure to maintain public trees?
Which limitation period governs—Section 478 DMC Act (6 months) or Article 82 Limitation Act (2 years)?

Rules / Principles

Public Duty of Care

Municipal bodies must inspect and handle old, dry, or dangerous public trees to protect road users.

Constructive Knowledge

If the owner ought to know a tree is hazardous, a duty arises to act reasonably to prevent harm.

Limitation

Section 478 DMC Act (6 months) applies to acts under the Act; Article 82 (2 years) applies to tortious negligence causing death.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic of accident, treatment, litigation and appeals

18.08.1964: Two brothers rode home; a neem branch fell on Suresh’s head at Alipur Road; severe skull injuries.

19.08.1964: Despite emergency surgery at Irwin Hospital, Suresh died of injuries.

Apr 1966: Legal notice sent to MCD. Suit for Rs 3,00,000 filed on 05.08.1966.

High Court (SJ): Held MCD negligent; awarded Rs 90,000.

High Court (DB): Dismissed MCD appeal; enhanced compensation to Rs 1,44,000 @ 6% p.a.

Supreme Court (1999): Affirmed negligence and compensation; clarified limitation as 2 years under Article 82.

Arguments

Appellant: MCD

Claim barred by Section 478 (6 months) of DMC Act.
No proof of negligence; incident was unforeseen.
Compensation excessive.

Respondents: Heirs of Suresh

Tree was dry and dangerous; Corporation knew or ought to have known.
Limitation is Article 82 (2 years) as this is tortious negligence.
Compensation should reflect income and multiplier method.

Judgment

Gavel over a city road with tree silhouette

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the Division Bench’s decision.

Negligence: Expert evidence showed the neem tree was dry, dying, and barkless—an obvious hazard; MCD breached its duty.
Compensation: Rs 1,44,000 with 6% p.a. interest sustained; multiplier of 15 applied to income (~Rs 800/day referenced by Court).
Limitation: Article 82 (2 years) of the Limitation Act applicable; Section 478 DMC Act inapplicable to tort claims.

Ratio Decidendi

Municipal bodies owe a proactive duty to remove dangerous public trees. For tortious negligence causing death, the two-year limitation under the Limitation Act governs, not the shorter period in the municipal statute.

Why It Matters

Clarifies municipal liability for tree-related accidents.
Sets the correct limitation framework for negligence suits.
Encourages regular tree audits and public safety measures.

Key Takeaways

Duty to inspect and remove hazardous public trees.
Constructive knowledge triggers liability.
Article 82 (2 years) applies to death by negligence claims.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “T.R.E.E.”

Trim/track dangerous trees (duty).
Reasonable care with constructive knowledge.
Evidence proved negligence.
Exact limitation: Article 82 (2 yrs).

3-Step Hook:

Spot hazard (dry, dying, barkless tree).
Link duty (municipal care + knowledge).
Apply time-bar (Article 82, not s.478).

IRAC

Issue: Liability of MCD for death due to falling branch and the proper limitation period.

Rule: Public duty of care; constructive knowledge; Article 82 Limitation Act vs Section 478 DMC Act.

Application: Expert evidence showed a dangerously dry tree; Corporation failed to act; claim filed within two years framework.

Conclusion: Negligence established; compensation upheld; 2-year limitation confirmed.

Glossary

Constructive Knowledge: Legal idea that a person/entity should have known a fact from available signs.
Article 82 (Limitation Act): Sets the two-year period for compensation claims for death by negligence.
Section 478 (DMC Act): Six-month notice/limitation for acts done under the Act—doesn’t cover independent torts.