Judgment : Manapparai Municipality/first defendant, as against whom the suit instituted by the plaintiffs, has been decided both in the trial Court as well as in the first appellate Court, is before us. 2. Admittedly, Ramalingam, is the head of the family of the plaintiffs. He was an agent canvassing for and on behalf of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation. He is eking out his livelihood by engaging himself in such operation in the Manapparai Depot of the said Corporation. On the fateful day, namely on 18.05.1994, at about 9.15 a.m., he did not know that he will be called by his Maker. When he was standing underneath the sun-shed maintained by the Municipality, suddenly, it collapsed and fell on Ramalingam. Ramalingam fell as a dead man. He was lifeless. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs sued the Manapparai Municipality as well as the other defendants claiming damages for their negligence in not properly maintaining the sun-shed. They sought for damages to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. The main contesting party/first defendant Manapparai Municipality resisted the claim. It did not deny that unfortunate event. It did not deny that Ramalingam having become immortal, but it would deny that there is no fault or negligence on its part. It would also plead that the collapse of the sun-shed was beyond the control of the Municipality. Thus, it pleads 'Act of God'. Further, it would also plead that age of the deceased and other details, have not been proved. 4. On this divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs, first plaintiff Veerammal examined herself as P.W.1 and Palanichamy and Radhakrishnan as P.Ws.2 and 3 and she has also marked Exs.A1 to A5, while the Municipal Engineer K.Vasudevan, has been examined as D.W.1 and also one more witness Gunasekaran was examined as D.W.2. 5. The trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence adduced and on consideration of the rival submissions repelled the Municipality's plea of Act of God, mulcted it in damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- together with 'Pendente lite interest' at 12% and 'interest on judgment' at 6%, also taking into account the age of the deceased and the pitiable plight of the plaintiffs as having lost their sole breadwinner. 6. 6. Upset by this decision, the Municipality went to the next appellate Court, namely, the Principal District Court, Trichirappalli and wanted uprooting of the judgment of the trial Court on the contention that on the facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced, the Court of first instance ought not to have decreed the suit as prayed for. However, after hearing both sides and adverting to the evidence on record, the appellate Judge, endorsed the view of the trial Court, thus the appeal collapsed. The Municipality not lost its fighting spirit. Now approached this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced, it would show that the unfortunate event was far beyond the control of the Municipality. Further, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation would be a proper and necessary party. However, it has not been impleaded. Further, there is no proof as to the age of the deceased and other relevant factors. In the circumstances, the Municipality wishes to annul the judgments of both the Courts below. 8. Upon perusing the pleadings in the plaint and written statement and the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar, we are coming to the irresistible conclusion that we have not been successfully persuaded to deviate from the decision of the trial Court and the first appellate Court for the following reasons. 9. Indisputably, on the fateful day, an unfortunate event had taken place. The sun-shed belonging to the Municipality fell down on the head of Ramalingam. No need to prove it. it is 'res ipsa loquitur' meaning, the thing speaks for itself. Further, in its written statement, the Municipality itself admits the fall of the sun-shed on the head of Ramalingam. 10. The present one is an action in tort under private Law. The Principle behind the Law of Torts is that everyone must owe a duty to take care towards the other. This is the basis of the Law of Negligence. Breach of such a duty to take care, will result in suing the person, who was at fault. 11. In common Law, many defences were developed in an action for liability on the basis of tortious liability. One of them is 'Act of God'. It is also called 'vis-major'. This is the basis of the Law of Negligence. Breach of such a duty to take care, will result in suing the person, who was at fault. 11. In common Law, many defences were developed in an action for liability on the basis of tortious liability. One of them is 'Act of God'. It is also called 'vis-major'. It means some happening, which is beyond the control of the defendant. The common example is natural calamity, torrential rain, earth quake etc. But, this defence has to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. 12. Now in the instant case, no evidence emanated with regard to happening of any natural calamity at the time and date of incident. On the contrary, in its evidence, the Municipal Engineer D.W.1, would not deny that the sun-shed is very old. 13. An untenable argument seems to have been argued before the Courts below by way of defence that when the other adjacent buildings were alright why as against the defendants with regard to sun-shed such an imputation has been made. It is imputed, because it is not in proper condition. It so happened that because it was not maintained properly. Other adjacent buildings did not fall, because they were maintained properly. Therefore, the defence of Act of God, is contrary to the factual matrix and commonsense. 14. Liability is that the defendants. Thus, the Transport Corporation is not a necessary Party. Life of a man is lost. His life has been snatched away by the negligent act of the Municipality. He has been valued including the sufferings of the plaintiffs only up to Rs.1,00,000/-. On any ground, we are not tinker it or dilute it except keep it as it is. Unfortunately, the Municipality is very lucky, there is no cross-appeal or cross-objection from the respondents for an hike. 15. We are of the view that absolutely there is no merit in this appeal. 16. In the circumstances, this Second Appeal fails and it is dismissed as devoid of merits with costs. The decrees and judgments of the Courts below are upheld. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.