Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is at the instance of a local authority the Quilon Municipality. It arises out of a suit, by an inhabitant of that Municipality. It is for damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of an aged tree falling on his building. The owners of the property in which the dangerous tree stood in its extra-ordinary pose, are defendants 2 to to 8, the legal heirs of one Aha aimed Khan. The Municipality was sought to be made liable for its gross default in the discharge of its statutory duty cast under the Municipalities Act in relation to the abatement of a nuisance caused by a dangerous tree. 2. The trial court decreed the suit and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages. There were two appeals, one by the first defendant-Municipality and the other by the legal heirs of Ahammed Khan. The appellate court affirmed the liability of the defendants but restricted the damages to Rs. 3,000/-. 3. The Municipality seeks to dispute its very liability by presenting this second appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellant rightly did not question the quantum of damages payable. (If at all, the lower appellate court has only erred in denying compensation for the damages actually sustained by the collapse of the brick work in the compound wall belonging to the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to refer to that aspect in greater detail in this second appeal.) 5. The plaintiff adduced adequate documentary evidence Exts. Al to A12 and examined 6 witnesses on his side including himself as Pw.1. Apart from producing the notice issued by counselor) behalf of the plaintiff to Ahammed Khan, the appellant-Municipality did not take any effort in adducing evidence on its side. (Doubtless, this is a conduct which those who are in charge of the administration of local bodies should probe into. Those who are responsible for such a grievous default, should not be let off, without being impressed upon about the accountability and responsibility in relation to their elementary duty as public servants. The Director of Municipalities and Government would do well, to consider these aspects in all its seriousness and issue necessary directives to prevent recurrence of such irresponsible conduct on the part of the officials of the primary units of democracy. The Director of Municipalities and Government would do well, to consider these aspects in all its seriousness and issue necessary directives to prevent recurrence of such irresponsible conduct on the part of the officials of the primary units of democracy. A copy of the judgment would be forwarded to the Secretary to Government, Local Authorities Department and also to the Director of Municipalities to ensure expeditious action in that behalf. 6. The following are the established facts: The coconut tree in the neighbouring property posed a distinct danger. That it was 80 ft. long was indicative of its age and infirmity. That it leaned towards the building, would have alerted everyone to a realisation of imminent danger. If out side prodding was necessary, that was furnished by the complaint Ext. AS given to the Municipality on 9-6-1978. The immobility on the part of the defendant for over one year, made the plaintiff send a second representation, Ext. A7 dated 18-6-1979. The Councillors, who have given evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, have spoken about the issue having been discussed before the Council and about the decision having been taken for directing the cutting of the dangerous tree. As noted earlier, there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the Municipality to indicate the action actually taken by it. The Court is kept in the dark about the deliberations of the Council or the implementation of any decision taken by it. The tree tried to hold on for many months more. Alas! it fell down on 16-5-1980. Its last resting place was the plaintiff's terrace. There was physical impact to the building and mental one to the inhabitants. The plaintiff preserved the last sight of the tree tragedy by taking a photograph, Ext. A10. 7. Defendants declined to indemnify the plaintiff against the damages sustained by him, though the demand in that behalf had been made repeatedly. This led to the suit. The suit, as not earlier, now stands decreed, concurrently by the courts below. 8. The Municipality seeks to shake off the adverse decisions against it, by holding on to the technical plea of limitation. The courts below have repelled that contention. The facts and evidence available do not justify any interference with that conclusion. The cause of action for the plaintiff, in one sense arose, only on 15-5-1980 when the tree fell down. The suit was filed on 20-12-1980. The courts below have repelled that contention. The facts and evidence available do not justify any interference with that conclusion. The cause of action for the plaintiff, in one sense arose, only on 15-5-1980 when the tree fell down. The suit was filed on 20-12-1980. The plaintiff averred that a notice under S.392 of the Act had been received by the Municipality and that there had not been any response to the same. These averments have not been denied by the defendant-Municipality. The observation of the trial court while dealing with the issue of Limitation is particularly pertinent: "One contention raised by the 1st defendant is that the suit is barred by limitation. It is not stated as to bow and why such a contention was raised." 9. The plea of Limitation would fall on another ground as well. The Municipality relies on S.392 of the Act. The first sub-section protects the council and its officers in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of the Act or subordinate Legislation before the expiration of a period of two months after the service of a notice in that behalf, in the manner indicated therein. Sub-section (2) excludes suits for injunction from that object. Sub-section (3) reads: (3) "Every such suit shall be commenced within six months after the date on which the cause of action arose or in case of continuing injury or damage during such continuance or within six months after the ceasing thereof." It is arguable that the Section is applicable only to acts done or purporting to have been done. Whether it will be applicable to an omission in relation to the discharge of statutory duty, is an aspect which requires specific plea and detailed consideration. Not having chosen to raise any such specific plea, nor having attempted to make available to the Court any shred of evidence in purported support of such a plea, the Municipality is disentitled to relief on this Court. 10. The contention is denuded of merit for another reason also. As noted earlier, the outer limit of time within which the suit has to be filed, even on the assumption that S.392 is applicable, is 15-11-1980. The suit was filed on 20-12-1980. In between, the suit notice had been sent to the Municipality. That is dated 9-7-1980. 10. The contention is denuded of merit for another reason also. As noted earlier, the outer limit of time within which the suit has to be filed, even on the assumption that S.392 is applicable, is 15-11-1980. The suit was filed on 20-12-1980. In between, the suit notice had been sent to the Municipality. That is dated 9-7-1980. Under S.15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, (to the extent it is applicable to the present case), in computing the period of limitation for any suit of which notice has been given, in accordance with the requirements of any law for the time being in force, the period of such notice shall be excluded. The effect of sub-section is to add to the period of limitation that much of the period of notice. Looked that way, the suit would appear to be well within time. The lower appellate court has taken the view (following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vekataramadas v. Latchanna, (AIR 1966 Andhra Pradesh 277).that the relevant provisions applicable to the case are those contained in the Limitation Act. (It is unnecessary to express any view on that aspect, in the light of my earlier conclusion). 11. The local authorities have a pride of place in our Constitutional set up. They are the primary units of democracy. They have intimate connection with many facets of the life and the living of the inhabitants. The basic amenities,-potable water, proper drainage, cart stands and markets, clear and safe pavements and streets, well lit lamps during night-are some of the matters which should cause concern for such local authorities. 12. In a sense, the local authorities in India have a cherishable history. The foundations of local self-Government were laid in India in 1884 with Lord Ripon. He had appreciated the words of Lord Brice that "the essence of modern democracy lay in the local self Government'." The Government of India Act of 1919 gave the responsibility of administrating local Government in the provinces to elected ministers. Local authority was the people's training ground in the act of self Government. 13. According to a Member of the Indian Civil Service who had much acquaintance with the administrative set up in India, "Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was serving in his administrative apprenticeship as Chairman of the Allahabad Municipal Board." (See'Under Two Masters' by N.B. Banarjee, page 224). Local authority was the people's training ground in the act of self Government. 13. According to a Member of the Indian Civil Service who had much acquaintance with the administrative set up in India, "Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was serving in his administrative apprenticeship as Chairman of the Allahabad Municipal Board." (See'Under Two Masters' by N.B. Banarjee, page 224). The Constitution of India has made many references to the local authorities and have made specific provisions to ensure their independent functioning and economic viability. 14. Any authority which yields extensive powers must own corresponding responsibilities. Many such are now statutorily obligated. Any failure of the authorities in carrying out such statutory duties can be only at their risk and liability. The Supreme Court through its Ratlam Municipality decision (AIR. 1980 SC. 1622) had alerted the local authorities about some of their statutory responsibilities. 15. Chap.9 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 deals with nuisances. They take in a variety of matters like dangerous structures, dangerous trees and dangerous tanks, wells, holes etc., S.2SI deals with dangerous trees. That Section reads: (1) If any tree or any branch of a tree or the fruit of any tree be deemed by the Commissioner to be likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure, the Commissioner may by notice require the owner of the said tree to secure, lop or cut down the said tree so as to prevent any danger therefrom." The duty is cast on the Commissioner to be vigilant about a tree likely to fall and thereby to endanger any person or structure. It is for him to evaluate the intensity or the imminence of the danger. It is for him to take a remedial action. If a mere securing of a tree would be sufficient, he can do so. If it requires something more, like lopping of a branch, that too can be resorted to. If cutting down is inevitable, he shall not hesitate to take that extreme step. The situations where immediate action is necessary are dealt with in sub-section (2). It is open to the Commissioner to take action without issue of a notice to the owner of the tree or before the expiry of the time fixed in the notice already served. The basic requirement is to obviate danger from the dangerous tree to any person or to a structure. It is open to the Commissioner to take action without issue of a notice to the owner of the tree or before the expiry of the time fixed in the notice already served. The basic requirement is to obviate danger from the dangerous tree to any person or to a structure. Discharge of this statutory duty is independent of any complaint preferred in that behalf by an aggrieved person. The Commissioner should certainty ensure that such periodic supervision is made effectively and efficiently through the subordinate staff under his command; and every employee of the local authority so entrusted with statutory duty, in turn, has to carry it out diligently and promptly. 16. It is not as though the discharge of this duty is an unduly strenuous task. No doubt, it requires involvement and vigil on the part of those serving under the local administration. The officers and servants of the local authority can ill-afford to shirk that work. If they do so, the affected inhabitant has his legal remedy. The courts are bound to protect the victims of maladministration of the local authority. The local authority, in turn, should take the pains to fix up the responsibility and recoup the loss from the guilty individual official or employee. There cannot be any doubt on these basic legal principles. (It is my personal recollection that one of the Commissioners of the former Ernakulam Municipality the present Cochin city used to have his morning survey in his own personal (small) car, through the lanes and by-lanes, just to have a glimpse of the sanitary and other conditions of the area under his responsible administration. The streets were then clean and without illegal projections; the drains unblocked; and the gardens full of flowers.) 17. Negligence in this statutory duty, of a highly culpable degree, is clearly established in the present case. If the local authority would not move its little finger to avert the possible injury to persons and structures alike, arising from a dangerous tree for such a long period as two years, they have necessarily to answer to the victims of their negligence The finding of the courts below about the liability of the Municipality, cannot, therefore, be doubted or disputed at all. 18. The case has served to demonstrate an important aspect of local administration. 18. The case has served to demonstrate an important aspect of local administration. It is unfortunate that in India, a consciousness of the rights of the citizenry, especially in relation to their dealings with administration, is yet to develop The lack of reaction of the Indian people had been noticed by the authors of the Penal Code. It was observed thus: "In this country the danger is on the other side; the people are too little disposed to help themselves;... Under these circumstances we are desirous rather to rouse and encourage a manly spirit among the people than to multiply restrictions on the exercise of the right of self-defence." (See Whitley Stokes: Anglo Indian Code Vol. I.P. 17 quoted in Common Law in India, P. 150, Hamstyn Law Lecture by M. C. Setalvad). With the vast progress achieved in various fields of human activity, the hang overs of an inactive age should have been long ago discarded. Experience would, however, indicate that the people are yet to develop that spirit of being alive and alert in the vindication of their rights. 19. It was a right reaction of a distressed lady who saw the disintegrated snail in the glass of ginger beer taken to drink, that resulted in an epoch-making decision in the law of torts. (See Donaghue v. Stevenson, (1932) AC. 562). That a municipal council owes a fiduciary duty to its rate payers has been emphasised in the well known Bromly case (See Bromly London Borough Council v. Greater London Council. 1982-1 All ER 129. It is unnecessary to refer to the large number of cases which had arisen in that country. One recent decision is Haydon v. Kent County Council, (1978) 2 All ER 97. It demonstrates how even a small delay in clearing an unexpected snow fall, exposed the local authority to a suit for damages at the instance of an old lady, who fell down on the icy pathway. It has to be noted in that connection that in less than 24 hours, the local authority rushed to action, despite unfavourable climatic conditions. (See detailed reference to this case in Saina v. Konderi, 1984 KLT 428 at 432.) 20. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru expressed about the local authorities in India in fairly strong words. In his Autobiography, he observed: "They are just inefficient, and their weak point is nepotism, and their perspectives are all wrong. (See detailed reference to this case in Saina v. Konderi, 1984 KLT 428 at 432.) 20. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru expressed about the local authorities in India in fairly strong words. In his Autobiography, he observed: "They are just inefficient, and their weak point is nepotism, and their perspectives are all wrong. All this is natural enough; for democracy to be successful must have a background of informed public opinion and a sense of responsibility," Things should have been different by now. Things, however, appear not to be so. The decision would, it is to be hoped, alert all local authorities in the discharge of their statutory functions. If that purpose is served by this decision, the Quilon Municipality would have usefully added one more case to the development of law. Constitutional and otherwise. (It has contributed, much to authoritative decisions about Art.276 of the Constitution, and the provisions of the Municipalities Act in relation to the levy, assessment and collection of profession tax. M/s. Harrisons & Crossfield v. Commissioner, 1961 KLJ. 971, Commissioner, Quilon Municipality v, Malayalam Plantations Ltd., W. A. No. 84 of 1962, Malayalam Plantations Ltd., v. Commissioner, Quilon Municipality, 1964 KLT. 374, and Travancore Mineral Ltd. v. Commissioner, Quilon Municipality, 1965 KLT. 224 are some such illustrative cases.) The second appeal is dismissed.