EVOLUTION OF PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN INDIA : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

By - Shivam Singh, LLM Student, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

Abstract: This study review the evolution of absolute liability in oleum gas leakage case. The present paper makes an attempt to analyse how the absolute liability principles is evolved in Indian court. Further, it strives to explain the paradigm shifts from old principles of strict liability to new principles of absolute liability. Additionally, it elaborate the shortcoming of strict liability in Indian scenario and difference between principles of strict liability and absolute liability. This paper has tried to addresses many issue such as why the old rule of strict liability was inappropriate in Indian perspective and how the new rule of principles of absolute liability was applied in new cases, further the scope of principle of absolute liability has also explained in this paper.

Key Words: Absolute Liability, Strict Liability, Tortious Liability, Environmental Tort

INTRODUCTION:

The general rule of negligence in law of torts is that someone can only be held liable for committing a tort if the plaintiff can prove negligence and the defendant is unable to disprove it. But sometimes law recognises ‘no fault liability’. Where the person may be liable for commission of tort even though he is not negligible on his part. the principle of strict liability is also called as ‘no fault liability’. In the year 1868, Strict liability principle is evolved from the case Rylands v Fletcher. According to this principle if any person keep hazardous material in his premise and such material escapes and causes damages in any manner then that person is responsible for such fault, although he was not negligent in keeping it and the burden of proof always shifts on the defendant to proof how he is not liable.

RYLAND v. FLETCHER

The defendants built a reservoir on their property using independent contractors. While excavating, the contractors discovered abandoned mines, but they did not adequately close them. They poured water into the reservoir. Water then spilled into the plaintiff's mines on the neighbouring property through the mineshafts. even though there was no negligence on the part of defendant, the plaintiff received a favourable ruling. The House of Lords upheld the Court of Exchequer Chamber's ruling that the defendant was responsible.

Essentials of Strict liability: The essentials for the applicability of rule of strict liability can be summarised as follows:

Presence of dangerous things that was brought by the defendant.
Dangerous things was brought in purview of non- natural use of land.
Escape of such dangerous things brought by the defendant.
The thing did escape and cause damage.

Exceptions of strict liability: However, in this case certain exceptions were also stated in which rule of strict liability cannot be applied:

Plaintiff's own default
Act of God
Consent to the plaintiff
Act of stranger
Statutory authority

EVOLUTION OF PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:

The principle of absolute liability is different from the law laid down under rule of strict liability in Ryland v Fletcher. Absolute liability principle is propounded by Indian Supreme court in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India. Which is popularly known oleum gas leakage case. In reality application of absolute liability under law of torts is same as strict liability without its exception. Supreme court in the this case move one step ahead than rule laid down under Ryland v. Fletcher and held that when any enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity would be absolutely liable for any harm which will be resulting from the operation of any such activity and to compensate to all those persons who will be affected by such accident.

M.C. MEHTA v UOI (Oleum Gas Leakage Case)

Facts: on 4th and 6th December 1985, oleum gas was leaked from Shriram foods and fertilisers industries in Delhi, which is belonging to Delhi cloth mill ltd. due to this leakage one of practicing advocate in Tishazari court had died and several others were injured. This matter reached before supreme court by way of public interest litigation.

Issues: the main issues in this case was that the consequence arising from the conduct of big enterprises follow the rule of struct liability, they will plead any of the exception and exonerated from any damage they have caused in the conduct of their activity.

Judgements: “Supreme court hold that this court is not bound to follow the old rule of English law. It evolved the new rule of ‘absolute liability’ keeping in mind the the prevailing social and economic condition of India at that present day. Bhagwati, C.J. observed that the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher was evolved at the time of 19th century and at that time science and technology development had not taken place and cannot afford need of the present-day economy and social structure. Law has to be amended in order to fulfil the need of fast changing society with economic and science development taking place in the country. Our judicial thinking should not be constrained by reference of any law prevails in England or in any other foreign land. So Supreme court propounded a new rule of absolute liability principle for any harm caused by hazardous or dangerous substance. Court expressly declared that the rule of absolute liability is not subject to any of the exception as rule in strict liability. It gave following reasons for justifying this rule:

The factory carrying out such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for owned profit has an obligation to compensate those persons who has suffering from their conduct and that enterprises should bear such loss as overhead; and that enterprises alone find out any way to protect and guard against such disasters.

The following statement of Bhagwati, C.J. which laid down the new principle may be noted:

We believe that an industry that engages in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegatable duty to the community to ensure that no one suffers harm as a result of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity it has undertaken. This includes both workers at the factory and residents in the surrounding areas. The industry must be deemed to have a duty to ensure that the hazardous or highly dangerous activity in which it engages is handled with the highest standards of safety, and if any harm arises as a consequence of such activity, the corporation must be held absolutely liable to compensate for such harm. The industry cannot claim that it took all reasonable precautions and that the damage took place without any negligence on its part.

Landmark cases where Absolute liability principle was upheld:

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case: It is considered worst industrial disaster till now, on the night of 2-3 December 1984 at union carbide India limited (UCIL) pesticide plant at Bhopal, over 500,000 people were exposed and About 2660 people died instantaneously due to leakage of methyl isocyanate and other toxic gases. Several civil and criminal suits were filled in US by the legal representative of the deceased and other victims for damages.. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of the victims. The Court applying the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the victims

The Supreme Court in case of Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India also upheld the rule laid down in this MC Mehta case. Court observed that tis rule is ‘absolute and non-delegable’ and enterprises cannot escape from liability by proving that it has taken all reasonable care and it was not negligible on its part.

The Supreme Court in case of Indian Council for Environment Legal Action V Union of India imposed the same principle which has been applied in the case of MC Mehta case and held that the enterprises carried such hazardous or dangerously activity would be liable to any loss caused by its activity to any other person irrespective of fact that such enterprises took reasonable care while carried out its activity.

Why the old Rule of strict liability was inappropriate in Indian Perspective?

High Industrialization Growth

The old rule was given in 19th century, about more than one 150 years ago, when the social and economic condition was totally different. The Indian economy is one that is rapidly expanding. The strict liability rule dates back a long time. The Old Rule was developed in an era with relatively little industrial growth, hence it cannot be used in a country with a rapidly expanding economy like India. Making a new regulation was therefore essential in order to meet the present requirements.

Difference between Strict liability and Absolute liability:

As oppose to strict liability, where the damage awarded are compensatory, the damage is exemplary under this rule. The rational being that the damages, should, to the least have deterrent effect in such cases.
As far as quantum of damages is concerned in such cases, it was observed that “the larger and more prosperous the enterprises, the greater the amount of compensation must be payable by it, also known as deep pocket theory.
The rule elucidated upon in Ryland v. Fletcher applies only to the non-natural use of land, but absolute liability applies even to the natural use of land. If a person uses a dangerous substance and if such substance escapes, he shall be held liable even though he has taken proper care.
The rule of Absolute liability does not have any exceptions, unlike the rule of Strict Liability. Also, in the case of UOI V. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumarthe view of constitutional bench was that the rule of MC Mehta is not subject to any type of exception.
In case of strict liability, the defendants can take the benefit of several defences which has already mentioned under exception of strict liability. But in the case of absolute liability, Where any kind of defence is prohibited, the defendants are subject to an absolute responsibility. They must be held absolute liable to compensate for all such harm.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

This rule applies without any limitation or exception and creates an individual completely liable for any fault. These liabilities are absolute liabilities due to the capacity to hold anybody entirely responsible for their actions and the application of stiff penalties. By Explaining the rule of No-fault liability Blackburn J. said that "We believe that the general rule of law is that anybody who brings something onto their property for personal use, gathers it, and retains it there with the potential to do harm if it escapes, must keep it in at their own risk and is vicariously liable for all harm that results from its escape." The rule of Strict Liability was subject to many exceptions therefore practically very little ruled was left. Due to the numerous exceptions in the old rule, no one could be held strictly liable for their negligence. Therefore, it was essential to make harder rule with same purpose.