Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice M. K. Thakker dismissed a municipal corporation’s appeal and confirmed directions to pay ₹4,84,473 as damages with 9% interest per annum to the legal heirs of a motorcyclist who died in 2007 after a stray bull rushed onto the road and struck him. Holding that the accident stemmed from the corporation’s neglect in keeping public roads and streets free from stray cattle, the Court maintained the compensation award against the civic body. Referring to the coordinate bench decision in Faiyazhussain Nazirahmed Ansari, Justice Thakker invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to draw an inference of negligence from the circumstances of the incident. The Court also directed an inquiry to recover the payout from the responsible municipal officer and sought a compliance report within three months.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the legal heirs of a deceased motorcyclist seeking damages from a municipal corporation following a fatal road accident. The deceased sustained grievous head injuries when a stray bull suddenly entered the roadway and struck his motorcycle, causing him to fall. He underwent prolonged medical treatment at multiple hospitals before succumbing to his injuries.

Also Read: ‘Manifestly Perverse’: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court Bail To Accused Who Allegedly Murdered Key Eyewitness While On Bail

The plaintiffs claimed compensation towards medical expenses, loss of income, loss of dependency, and mental suffering, alleging negligence on the part of the municipal authority in failing to prevent stray cattle from roaming on public roads. The municipal corporation contested liability, asserting that responsibility for impounding stray animals lay with the police authorities and that adequate cattle facilities had already been provided. It further alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The trial court partly decreed the suit, holding the municipal corporation liable to the extent of seventy percent by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, while attributing thirty percent contributory negligence to the deceased. Compensation with interest was awarded accordingly. The municipal corporation challenged only the finding on liability before the High Court.

The Court examined whether the trial court was justified in fastening tortious liability on the municipal corporation. It recorded that “Considering the aforesaid decision as well as the circumstances of the accident, which speak for itself and narrate the entire incident, it clearly emerges that the stray bull dashed to the deceased while he was riding his motorcycle. The facts on record demonstrate that the accident occurred under the management and control of the appellant Corporation and its servants, and such an accident would not ordinarily occur if those entrusted with such management had exercised due and reasonable care. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is, therefore, squarely applicable, as no reasonable explanation has been forthcoming from the appellant regarding the cause of the accident, which was otherwise within the control of the defendant. Had due care been taken, such an unfortunate incident could have been avoided.”

Referring to statutory duties, the Court observed that “under clause (19), the duty of removal of obstructions and projections in or upon streets, bridges and other public places is specifically cast upon the Corporation.” It stated that “the primary liability rests with the Corporation to maintain public roads and streets in a manner that ensures they are free from stray cattle.”

On the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court recorded that “such an accident would not ordinarily occur if those entrusted with such management had exercised due and reasonable care.” It further observed that “no reasonable explanation has been forthcoming from the appellant regarding the cause of the accident, which was otherwise within the control of the defendant.”

The Court noted that negligence could be inferred from circumstances, observing that “the mere happening of the accident itself may be more consistent with negligence on the part of the defendant than with other causes.” It held that the facts on record demonstrated failure in discharge of statutory duties and recorded that “the inaction on the part of the appellant Corporation in maintaining the public road in a condition safe for its users clearly reflects wilful negligence.”

After analysing the evidence and precedents, the Court concluded that the trial court’s finding on liability did not warrant interference.

Also Read: Institute For Plasma Research Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction As “State” Under Article 12: Gujarat High Court

The Court directed that “In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, since the amount awarded towards compensation is paid from the public exchequer, the same shall be recovered, after holding a necessary inquiry, from the Market Officer or the concerned erring officer who remained negligent in performing his duties. A report regarding the action taken against the erring officer shall be submitted before this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

“Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.615 of 2008 is hereby confirmed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant (Municipal Corporation): Mr. S. S. Acharya, Advocate

For the Respondents (Original Plaintiffs): Mr. Rohan A. Shah, Advocate; Mr. Rushabh H. Shah, Advocate

Case Title: Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Mominaben Malbulbhai Ghanivala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:72815
Case Number: First Appeal No. 519 of 2020
Bench: Justice M. K. Thakker