Court said the falling of signboard due to high-velocity winds a foreseeable event given Delhi's location; hence ‘act of god’ defence does not apply. In a case where a man suffered serious head injuries after a bank’s signboard fell over his head in 2011 and died early this year, the Delhi High Court has directed the release of compensation of over Rs 18 lakh in favour of the kin of the deceased while considering the question whether such an incident qualifies as an “act of god”. A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju on December 9 upheld the finding of the single judge that Delhi is subjected to high-velocity winds during May every year which should be foreseen given the city’s geographical location. “Therefore, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this defence would not be available to the bank,” the HC held. In coming to this conclusion the HC examined that the “act of god” defence can be taken in cases where common law principle of strict liability applies, enunciated in the landmark British case Rylands v Fletcher which states that “whoever collects on his land anything, which, if it escapes, is likely to cause mischief or injury, is answerable for damages which is a natural consequence of escape of such thing or object. In such circumstances, the defendant can have himself excused if the escape of such a dangerous or hazardous thing was a consequence of act of God or vis major or because of the default of the plaintiff i.e., the one who has brought the action”. The HC held that the limitation of “act of god” defence is that it should not be an event which is “anticipated or is likely to take place from time to time”. The HC noted that the defence would be that the natural event, such as rain, high-velocity winds, snow, landslides etc., were so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could reasonably have anticipated the event and held that the same was not true in the present case and held in favour of the deceased.  The court also noted that in cases of persons using public pathways and passages, the law presumes that the owners of structures and buildings which abut such pathways, highways or roads “have a duty of care to the passer-by”. “Therefore, objects which form part of the structure or are fastened to such a structure or building, if not periodically inspected or maintained, cause an injury to a passer-by by coming off the façade of the building, would result in the defendant and or his agents being held liable under the tort of negligence,” the HC said, holding the bank guilty of negligence. Examining the bank’s arguments, the HC observed that there is no defence by the bank that it itself carried out a periodical inspection of the signboard put up on the façade of the building. It noted that the deceased “was a passer-by who met with the accident while exercising his right of passage on a public pathway which abutted the building in which the bank was housed”. A bank’s signboard fell on the head of the man, who ran a business concerning sale and purchase of immovable assets, on May 22, 2011. He suffered severe head injuries in the accident that occurred while he was walking towards a tailor’s shop. The path which the deceased took abutted the building in which the bank was housed. He was admitted to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre of AIIMS on the same day, underwent brain surgery and was ultimately discharged from AIIMS after 38 days in June 2011. As noted by the HC the “physical and mental agony” of the deceased continued even after he was discharged from AIIMS and he was admitted for at least 43 times for a cumulative period of 100 days. In October 2013 he moved the HC before a single judge that passed an order against the bank on April 8, 2019. Hence the bank moved a division bench of the HC, while the deceased also filed an appeal on the compensation aspect. The deceased died during the pendency of his appeal on February 21 this year. A criminal case was also registered against the bank manager in 2011. The officer was acquitted in December 2018. It was also noted by the single judge and upheld by the division bench that the bank was negligent as it failed to obtain permission of the authorities before erecting the signboard on the facade of the building concerned, which is a requirement under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The HC said that even if it is assumed, as argued by the bank, that they were not required to take permission under the Act, it still not absolve the bank of the charge of negligence levelled against it. The court said that if signboards bear the name of the entity which is descriptive of the entity’s business and they are put up in various parts of the city, they could, in a given case, be treated as an advertisement, which requires a mandatory permission under the DMC Act. The bank’s argument was that there was no obligation cast on it to seek prior permission from the Commissioner for putting up the signboard as it does not advertise the business being carried out.