What was the key question in this case?

Whether the Municipal Corporation had a legal duty of care to maintain public trees and if its failure caused the death, triggering tort liability.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

It allowed the Corporation’s appeal, holding that planting/maintenance powers were discretionary unless a statute created a clear, enforceable duty.

Are public bodies liable for omissions?

Generally no. They are liable for wrongful acts; omissions attract liability only when a statute imposes a specific mandatory duty to act.

Was compensation recovered from the family?

No. The Court did not order recovery of the Rs 45,000 already paid, considering the family’s financial condition.

What test guides duty of care expansion?

Courts consider public policy, proximity, predictability, and the statute’s intent before widening the scope of duty.

Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum (1997)

PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Duty of care, Negligence, Municipal liability, Statutory duty SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Public trees, Omissions, Proximity, Public policy, Tort law India

Quick Summary

A pedestrian died when a roadside tree fell on him. His family claimed the Municipal Corporation was negligent in maintaining public trees. The Supreme Court examined if a statutory duty of care existed and whether an omission by the Corporation could create tort liability.

The Court allowed the Corporation’s appeal. It held that these powers were discretionary unless a statute clearly imposed a mandatory duty with a remedy. Omissions of public bodies generally do not attract liability without such a duty.

Issues

Does the Corporation owe a statutory duty of care to maintain public trees?
Was the death a direct result of the Corporation’s negligence, creating tort liability?

Rules

Public Policy & Duty

Courts widen duty of care only when it fits public policy, proximity, and predictability under the statute.

Negligence

Covers acts and omissions. Liability for breach arises only if law creates a private right and remedy.

Public Bodies

Generally not liable for omissions, unless a mandatory duty to act is clearly imposed by law.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Rajkot Municipal Corporation case

25 Mar 1975: Jayantilal was walking on the footpath when a roadside tree fell on him, causing fatal injuries.

Family sought Rs 1,00,000 compensation from the Rajkot Municipal Corporation.

Trial Court awarded Rs 45,000, finding failure to check tree health.

High Court (Division Bench) held the Corporation had a statutory duty to maintain public trees; enhanced liability.

Corporation filed SLP to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court view.

Arguments

Respondents (Family)

Corporation owed a duty to inspect and maintain public trees.
Failure to act was a negligent omission causing death.
Sought full compensation for loss and dependency.

Appellant (Corporation)

Powers to plant/maintain trees are discretionary, not mandatory.
No statute created a clear, enforceable duty with a private remedy.
Public bodies are not liable for mere omissions absent a legal duty.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment illustration for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation case

Appeal allowed; High Court findings were set aside.
Planting/maintenance of trees is a discretionary function unless the statute makes it mandatory with a remedy; no action lies for breach of a mere discretionary power.
Negligence cannot be inferred from unintentional omissions where the law does not require a specific act.
Public officials can be liable for wrongful acts within their function, not for good-faith acts/omissions absent malafides or a clear duty.
The Court directed no recovery of the earlier Rs 45,000 from the family considering their condition.

Ratio Decidendi

Municipal liability for omissions arises only when a statute imposes a clear duty to act with an intended private right of action. Without such duty, widening negligence would conflict with public policy and statutory design.

Why It Matters

Clarifies limits of public authority liability for omissions.
Guides when courts may extend a duty of care in tort.
Balances victim compensation with statutory structure and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Omissions ≠ liability unless law mandates action.

Duty expansion must align with public policy.

Check proximity & predictability before imposing duty.

Discretionary powers ≠ automatic private rights.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “DOPP: Duty, Omission, Policy, Proximity.”

Duty must be clear and statutory.
Omission alone is not enough.
Policy must support duty expansion.
Proximity justifies liability.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether a municipal duty to maintain trees exists in law and whether failure amounts to actionable negligence causing death.

Rule

Liability for omissions needs a mandatory statutory duty that creates a private right and remedy; public policy guides expansion.

Application

No clear mandatory duty to inspect trees was shown; thus negligence could not rest on a mere omission by the Corporation.

Conclusion

Appeal allowed; no liability imposed. Prior payment not recovered considering the family’s financial position.

Glossary

Discretionary Power: A power public bodies may exercise but are not bound to; breach usually does not create a private claim.
Omission: Failure to act. Liability arises only if the law requires action and protects individuals.
Proximity: Closeness of relationship linking defendant’s conduct to claimant’s harm; helps justify duty.