2016 (5) TMI 1572 - SC - Indian Laws

Flood due to release of water in the dam - non-maintenance of particular level of water in the dam by the Respondents - Act of god or not - Whether the act of releasing the water from the dam would amount to negligence on the part of the Respondents or it was inevitable due to heavy rains and is to be treated as an act of God ? - entitlement to some compensation even in the absence of proof of actual/exact damage caused - HELD THAT - There are two exceptions to the Rule of strict liability which were recognized in Rylands v. Fletcher itself viz. (a) where it can be shown that the escape was owing to the Plaintiff s default or (b) the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God. An act of God is that which is a direct violent sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not by any amount of ability have been foreseen or if foreseen could not by any amount of human care and skill have been resisted. Generally those acts which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause will come under the category of acts of God. Examples are storm tempest lightning extraordinary fall of rain extraordinary high tide extraordinary severe frost or a tidal bore which sweeps a ship in mid-water. What is important here is that it is not necessary that it should be unique or that it should happen for the first time. It is enough that it is extraordinary and such as could not reasonably be anticipated. What needs to be examined is as to whether the damage to the property of the Appellant herein was the result of an inevitable accident or unavoidable accident which could not possibly be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care caution and skill i.e. it was an accident physically unavoidable? - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly it has come on record that the overflow of dam was occasioned by torrential and heavy rains. However as pointed out above the Appellants specifically pleaded that the Respondent authorities did not keep the level of water in the dam sufficiently low to take care of the ensuing monsoon rains. They have thus set up the case that there was a negligence on the part of the Respondents in not taking care of the forthcoming monsoon season and keeping the water level in the dam at sufficiently low level to absorb the rainfall which was going to rise the water level in the dam. It is a matter of common knowledge that with advanced technology available with the Meteorological Department in the form of satellite signals etc there is a possibility of precise prediction of the extant of rainfall in the monsoon season. In view of the principle laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher onus was on the Respondents to discharge such a burden and it has miserably failed to discharge the same. On that basis we are constrained to hold that there is a negligence on the part of the Respondents which caused damage to the fields of the Appellants - In the instant case it is found that the loss is not only on account of rain though a part thereof can be attributed to the nature but also due to the negligence on the part of the Respondent authorities in not taking due precautions in time which could have avoided some loss/damage if not entirely. If damage has resulted from two or three causes namely from an act of God as well as a negligent act of a party the award of damages can be apportioned to compensate only the injury that can be attributed to the negligent act of the Respondents. The Appellants claimed damages to the tune of 21, 50, 000 for which no specific proof/evidence is given. At the same time we find that one Mohemmed Ikbal Mohemmedalam Galivala who is an agriculturist had appeared as the Plaintiffs witness and deposed that he was having the agriculture experience for the last 20 years particularly experience of cultivation of boar as well as its profit and income - it is not in dispute that loss has occurred and therefore a reasonable compensation can still be awarded. Exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution it is opined that ends of justice would be met in awarding damages to the tune of 5, 00, 000. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the release of water from the dam by the Respondents, which caused damage to the Appellants' plantation, can be classified as an 'Act of God'.
2. Whether the Respondents were negligent in maintaining the water level in the dam.
3. The quantum of damages and compensation to be awarded to the Appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the release of water from the dam by the Respondents, which caused damage to the Appellants' plantation, can be classified as an 'Act of God':
The Respondents argued that the release of water from the dam was necessitated by heavy rains, which they claimed was an 'Act of God'. The trial court accepted this defense, concluding that the Respondents' action was prudent and necessary to prevent a larger catastrophe. The court held that the heavy rains were an act of God, and therefore, the Respondents were not liable for the damages caused to the Appellants' plantation.

2. Whether the Respondents were negligent in maintaining the water level in the dam:
The Appellants contended that the Respondents were negligent in not maintaining a sufficiently low water level in the dam to accommodate the anticipated monsoon rains. The trial court found that the Appellants failed to provide specific evidence of negligence or exact loss. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Respondents did not adequately refute the Appellants' claims or provide evidence that the water level was managed appropriately to prevent overflow. The Court emphasized the principle of strict liability, originating from Rylands v. Fletcher, which holds that the entity maintaining a potentially harmful substance (in this case, water) is liable for any damage caused by its escape unless it can be proven that the escape was due to an act of God or the Plaintiff's default.

3. The quantum of damages and compensation to be awarded to the Appellants:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that although the Appellants did not provide exact proof of the damages, the fact of damage was established through the report of the Court Commissioners, which confirmed the submergence of the Appellants' fields and the uprooting of approximately 1500 trees. The Court held that the Respondents' negligence contributed to the damage and thus, the Appellants were entitled to compensation. Exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court awarded a reasonable compensation of ?5,00,000 to the Appellants, along with interest from the date of the trial court's judgment at a rate of 9% per annum and the cost of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the Respondents liable for negligence in not maintaining the appropriate water level in the dam, which resulted in the damage to the Appellants' plantation. The Court awarded ?5,00,000 as compensation, with interest and costs, emphasizing the principle of strict liability and the need for the Respondents to demonstrate that the overflow was unavoidable and not due to their negligence.