CHHAGAN LAL vs CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR (1968)
AIR 1968 SC 1146
Facts
In Chhagan Lal v. Corporation of City of Nagpur (1968), the dispute arose over the liability of municipal authorities for negligence concerning public infrastructure. Chhagan Lal, the plaintiff, suffered injuries due to an uncovered or poorly maintained municipal drain or manhole in Nagpur. He filed a lawsuit against the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, alleging negligence in maintaining public property, which led to his injury.
The Corporation, as the defendant, argued that it was performing statutory duties and could not be held liable for damages caused by alleged negligence. The primary issue before the court was whether a municipal corporation, while carrying out statutory functions, could be held responsible for injuries caused due to its failure to maintain public infrastructure properly.
Issues
1. Whether the municipal corporation could be held liable for negligence resulting in injury to a citizen.
2. Whether the corporation’s actions fell under sovereign functions, granting it immunity from legal claims.
3. Whether failure to maintain public roads and infrastructure constituted actionable negligence under tort law.
Judgment
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Corporation of Nagpur was liable for negligence. The Court made the following key observations:
● A municipal corporation is responsible for maintaining public roads, drains, and other infrastructure. Failure to do so, leading to harm to individuals, amounts to negligence.
● The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is important – If an act is part of a non-sovereign function, the state or its agencies can be held liable. The maintenance of roads and drains is a non-sovereign function, and thus, the corporation was responsible for damages.
● Citizens have a right to safe public infrastructure – Municipalities must ensure that public spaces do not pose risks to people.
The Court held that the corporation could not escape liability by claiming that it was merely performing statutory duties. The failure to maintain public property properly amounted to negligence, making it liable for damages.
Contemporary Relevance
This case set an important precedent for municipal liability in India. It established that government and municipal bodies are responsible for maintaining public infrastructure and can be held accountable for negligence.
Even today, this ruling is cited in cases where people suffer injuries due to open manholes, poor road maintenance, or faulty public facilities. The judgment reinforced the principle that authorities cannot claim immunity when their negligence results in harm to the public.
-SAKSHI
DNLU
Comments