IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.152/2024 Date of Decision: 19th May, 2025. MC Shimla and another .....Appellants. Versus Hari Nand and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Vivek Sharma Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.4/State. : None for responded No.5. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The facts of the case, as presented in the second appeal, are as follows. The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that Smt. Sunita, the wife of plaintiff no. 1 and mother of plaintiffs no. 2 and 3, died on 19.01.2017 due to grievous injuries sustained in an accident at the old bus stand in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on 16.01.2017. The accident occurred when a beam from the shops of the Municipal Corporation fell on her and other passengers 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 while they were waiting to board a bus. The plaintiffs contended that the demolition work of the old Ripon Hospital building was being carried out negligently by the defendants without proper supervision or safety measures. They alleged that no warning signs, barricades, or personnel were deployed to prevent public access to the hazardous area, leading to the fatal incident. The plaintiffs further claimed that Smt. Sunita’s death caused them significant financial loss, as she had managed their dairy business, which they were forced to abandon after her demise. 2. The defendants contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Defendants no. 2 and 3 raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, and non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements under Section 392 of the HP Municipal Corporation Act and Section 80 of the CPC. On merits, they asserted that the demolition work had been awarded to a contractor, Sh. Karanjeet Singh, who had taken all necessary precautions, including erecting barricades and deploying supervisors. They claimed that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and other passengers, who ignored oral warnings from officials and labourers and rushed toward a bus near the demolition site. Defendants no. 4 similarly denied negligence, stating that adequate safety measures, such as signboards and barricades, had been installed. They alleged that 3 the accident happened when passengers ran toward a speeding bus, causing a dismantled beam to fall. 3. The trial court framed eight issues on 28.08.2019: 1. Whether the deceased Sunita sustained grievous injuries on 16.01.2017, due to negligent and irresponsible act of the defendant while doing demolition work of old building of Ripon Hospital, as a result of which, she died on 19.01.2017, as alleged? OPP 2. In case, issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff being legal heir of deceased Sunita are entitled for damages, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for want of issuance of mandatory notice under Section 392 of HPMC Act, 1994? OPD 6. Whether no mandatory notice has been issued under Section 80 of CPC, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs are imaginary and highly exaggerated as alleged? OPD 8. Relief. 4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court partly decreed the suit in Favor of the plaintiffs on 30.06.2023. The appellants challenged this judgment in the first appeal, arguing that 4 the trial court erroneously decided issues no. 1 and 2 in Favour of the respondents. They contended that the evidence did not establish negligence on their part but instead showed that the deceased was negligent by ignoring warnings and rushing toward the bus. They reiterated that the demolition work was supervised by Municipal Corporation officials and that all preventive measures had been taken. The first appellate court concurring with the trial court held that the plaintiff was liable for compensation and that the defendants were jointly and severally liable before dismissing the appeal, leading to the filing of the present second appeal. 5. Perused the impugned judgment and heard counsel for the parties. 6. In the present case the plaintiffs, through the examination of witnesses to the incident, successfully established that at the time of the demolition work carried out by defendant no. 2, no due care was taken, as no barricades, signboards, or warning signs were installed to caution the public. The defendants’ claim regarding the installation of barricades and signboards, as well as the deployment of an additional labourer, Sh. Krishan, to issue warnings, remains unsubstantiated, as these assertions are merely oral averments unsupported by any documentary evidence. No photographs demonstrating the presence of barricades or warning signs were produced by the defendants, nor did Sh. 5 Krishan, who was allegedly assigned the task of warning passersby, appear as a witness to corroborate this claim. 7. The defendant’s argument that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was purportedly in a hurry to board a bus and ignored warnings, is legally unsustainable. This contention is contradicted by the consistent testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and PW5, who unequivocally stated that no barricades or warning signs were present at the site. Furthermore, during cross-examination, PW5 specifically denied the suggestion that the injuries described in Ext. PW5/A could have resulted from a fall on a hard surface, thereby reinforcing the plaintiffs’ case that the accident was a direct consequence of the defendants’ failure to implement necessary safety measures. Therefore, both the courts above have correctly and concurrently held that the death of the plaintiffs' wife and mother, Smt. Sunita, was caused by the negligent conduct of the defendants in carrying out and supervising the demolition work at the site. The defendants failed to exercise due care and take necessary precautions, which directly resulted in the fatal accident. The nature of the defendants' liability in this case amounts to strict liability, as their failure to ensure proper safety measures during a hazardous activity rendered them legally responsible for the tragic 6 consequences. Consequently, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss. 8. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th May, 2025 (Tarun/T.B)