MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. JAMMU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Jammu Mal had filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Pali, for the recovery of Rs. 1060/ -, by way of compensation, against the appellant Municipal Board, Pali. Respondent No. 2 was the Chairman of that Municipal Board. It was alleged by the plaintiff that his shop was situated at Pali, at the vicinity of 'Ghee -ka jhande'. That in the year 1964, in the month of May, the Municipal Board, Pali excavated the land in front of the shop, in order to construct the road. The excavation was 7 -8 feet deep With the result of that excavation, the foundations of the shop of the plaintiff were exposed and the shop was raised to the height of 9 -10 feet from the road level With the result, that it became impossible to enter the shop. Despite repeated requests, the Municipal Board did not get the foundations of the shop of the plaintiff repaired That in the year 1965, there was heavy rainfall in Pali, the shop of one Kirat Mal situated on the west of the shop of the plaintiff, fell down, because the foundations of that shop had also been exposed due to the excavation of the road, done by the Municipality Because of the fall of the shop of Kirat Mal, the shop of Jammu Mal, the plaintiff, received a shock and got cracks, and it became useless. According to the plaintiff all this damage to the shop was due to the deliberate malicious act of the Municipality. Me, therefore, claimed Rs. 1000/ - for getting the shop repaired, and Rs. 10/ - per month for a period of six months till the filing of the suit and the similar amount till the realization The defendants, in their written statement, came with a case that the work done by the Municipality was legal and the cause of the cracks of the shop of the plaintiff was the fall of the neighbouring shop of Kirat Mal, and not the excavation done by the Municipality. They denied the claim of the plaintiff to any damages or mean profits for the shop to have been useless on account of the cracks.

(2.) THE learned Civil Judge struck out various issues, recorded the evidence and concluded that the Chairman, Municipality, had got the excavation work done in his official capacity and the work was bonafide. He, therefore, was hot' liable for any compensation. The Municipal Board was held liable to compensate the plaintiff on the ground that the damage caused to the shop of the plaintiff was the result of the excavation of the road by the Municipality, and its negligence, not to get the foundations repaired despite the requests of the plaintiff. A decree for Rs. 1060, with costs, was passed in favour of the plaintiff. He was also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10 per month from the date of the filing of the suit.

(3.) IT is against the judgment of the learned District Judge that the Municipal Board has filed the second appeal in this Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the excavation done by the Municipality was for the public good, and therefore, even if any loss is sustained by anybody, the Municipality is not liable to make good the loss. Another argument advanced by the learned Counsel to assail the findings of the courts below is that the damage even if any caused to the shop of Jammu Mal, was on account of the fall of the neighbouring shop of Kirat Mal, due to heavy rainfall, and was, in no way, connected with the excavation work. The learned Counsel stressed that in cases where the damage is not the direct result of the work done by the defendant, he cannot be held liable to compensate the person alleging sustaining any loss. The learned Counsel tried to substantiate his contention by citing certain authorities, which, I will just discuss While trying to justify the finding of the courts below, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent Jammu Mal that the fall of the shop of Kirat Mal was the excavation work, because the foundation of his shops was also exposed and the rainy water entered the foundation causing the cracks in the walls of the shop.