Case Analysis on Municipal Corporation of

Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1996 S.C.175

Torts Internal Assessment - I
By -
Kashish Agarwal (22010324108)
Nithya Reddy Mandadi (22010324075)
Contents..
- Introduction to the concept
- Facts of the case
- Issues
- IRAC
- Case Comment
Introduction to the concept - “res ipsa loquitor”
Meaning Significance
The Maxim “res ipsa Any personal injury case
loquitor” means that the must be able to show that
thing or incident that the other party was
occurs speaks for itself. negligent or acted
improperly, which caused
the injuries in question. It's
possible that an injured
party won't always be able
to offer concrete evidence
of wrongdoing.
Effects
When the details of a
case demonstrate that an
accident took place and
there is no other
plausible explanation for
it save the defendant's
actions, it permits a
judge or jury to infer
negligence.
Facts of the Case

Fact 1 Fact 2 Fact 3

Subhagwanti passed Three separate legal Municipal Corporation of

away as a result of the heirs of Subhagwanti Delhi never examined
collapse of the Municipal each brought one lawsuit the Clock Tower which
Corporation of Delhi's each in the Trial Courts, made it unsafe.
clock tower at Chandni alleging that the
Chowk. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi's negligence was to
blame for Subhagwanti's
passing.
 - Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will
ISSUES OF THE apply?

- whether the appellant is liable for not

CASE maintainig the clock tower properly

- Whether the appellant was negligent for not

doing a proper check of the clock tower?

Is the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur will apply?
The Court of Appeals held the defendant
Subhagwanti's death was caused liable for carelessness, and it was amply
by the Municipal Corporation of shown that the authorities' negligence was
Delhi's carelessness in failing to the cause of this incidents occurrence.
inspect the clock tower, which The speakers at this event also think they
stands as evidence of their ought to be held accountable.
negligence.

ISSUE 1 RULE APPLICATION CONCLUSION COMMENT

Res ipsa loquitur, meaning,

Res ipsa loquitur will be
the action or incident
applicable in the case.
speaks for itself.
 The proprietor is responsible for Regardless of whether a
whether the appellant is liable for not
maintainig the clock tower properly anyone using the roadway who suffers patent or latent defect
harm as a result of the buildings' resulted in the harm, the
disrepair if they deteriorate to the proprietor is lawfully
point where they could endanger liable.
onlookers or become a nuisance.

ISSUE 2 RULE APPLICATION CONCLUSION COMMENT

Res ipsa loquitur, The owner's ability to demonstrate that he

meaning, the action or neither knew about the risk nor should
incident speaks for have known about it is not a defense in
itself. such a situation.
 It was not maintained properly ,
Whether the appellant
was also a old construction a
was negligent for not
which needed repairs and was not
doing a proper check of
the clock tower?
done. The owner hasn’t even
check the clock tower in any
repairs are needed or not.
The Court ruled that the
defendant was liable for
negligence and the properties
adjacent to highway become
hazardous due to a lack of
maintenance, the defendant was
liable to pay the damages

.
ISSUE 3 RULE APPLICATION CONCLUSION COMMENT

The appellant was obliged to maintain the

Res ipsa loquitur, clock tower carefully which he failed to do
meaning, the action or so the appellant is negligent
incident speaks for
itself.