H M T LIMITED Vs. SIMON T K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of arboreal forensics comes up for judicial resolution in this case.

(2.) THE appellant in this appeal is the defendant in O. S. No. 926 of 1993 on the file of the II Addl. Sub Judge's Court, Ernakulam. The said suit was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 30,000 by way of damages. THE PLAINT AVERMENTS

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows: the plaintiff (T. K. Simon) is residing on the southern side of the property of the defendant Company (H. M. T. Ltd. , Kalamassery ). On 3-7-1993 a big tree belonging to the defendant fell into the plaintiff's property heavily damaging the plaintiff's compound wall, pipeline and roof of the building. The plaintiff had informed the defendant about the dangerous position of the defendant's tree. The plaintiff also informed the defendant by letter dated 5-7-1993 that on account of the fall of their tree the aforementioned damage had occurred. The defendant's officers came and inspected the damage and promised to make good the loss. But there was no further response. As there was no response from the defendant in spite of ext. A-2 letter and repeated requests, the plaintiff caused Ext. A-3 lawyer notice dated 25-8-1993 to be issued to the defendant demanding payment of rs. 30,000 as loss on account of the aforesaid damage. The defendant sent Ext. A-4 reply notice dated 22-9-1993 denying its liability on account of the fall of the tree. A sum of Rs. 10,000 is estimated as compensation for the damage to the compound wall and Rs. 15,000 as the damage to the roof of the building. Another sum of Rs. 5,000 is estimated towards the damage to the pipeline and pump shed. The cause of action arose on 3-7-1993 when the defendant's tree fell on the plaintiff's property and on 22-9-1993 when the defendant sent Ext. A-4 reply denying the liability, at Kalamassery. Hence, the suit. THE DEFENCE