ABSOLUTE LIABILITY (The Rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)
The Supreme Court was dealing with the claims arising from the leakage of oleum gas on 4th and 6th December, 1945 from the unit Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Ltd. complex at Delhi. This gas leakage occurred soon after the Bhopal gas leak and people in Delhi was in panic. As a consequence of this leakage, one advocate practicing in the Tis Hizari Court had died and several others were affected the same. The action was brought through a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution by way of public interest litigation. And the Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it is not possible to follow the old English law, and we could make a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailing in India. And Supreme Court made a rule of ‘Absolute liability’ as a part of Indian law in preference to the rule of strict liability laid down in Ryland’s v. Fletcher. And this Absolute liability contains no exceptions as like in the Ryland’s v. Fletcher.
After laying down the above mentioned rule, the Court directed that, whoever has filed a petition may file action in appropriate court within 2 months to claim compensation for the victims of the gas leakage.
The Rule Absolute liability was summed up in the following words.ie., “If an enterprise or an organization is engaged with the hazardous activity and causes damages to any one on account of this accident of this hazardous activity, the escape of toxic gas or any dangerous thing, the enterprise or organization is strictly and absolute liable to compensate to the people who has affected.
And Absolute liability does not subject to any kind of exceptions like strict liability in Ryland’s v. Fletcher.
The court had given 2 justifying reason for this rule :-
1) Firstly, those who carry this dangerous things have social obligation to compensate who suffers from these.
2) Secondly, the enterprise alone has the resources to discover and guard against such hazards and damages.
And the court has also laid down that, the compensation must be according to the capacity of enterprise.
The principle of Absolute liability was applied by the Delhi High Court in Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd. There was a German Co-pilot, who stayed in a five star Hotel named Oberoi inter-continental in Delhi. The Co-pilot was injured when he was diving in the swimming pool of the Hotel. It was caused due to the improper design of the swimming pool and insufficient water in it. The injury was severe and resulted to his death. The death was caused after 13 years of the accident. And it was held that five star hotels take high amount of money from the guests but there is no proper facilities. Because of the improper facility in swimming pool made the co-pilot’s death. A latent defects in its structure or service attracts absolute liability. And finally the plaintiff was held entitled to rupees 50 lakhs for this accident.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, I hereby conclude that, strict liability and Absolute liability can be differentiated as, in strict liability, the party is not liable and need not have to pay the compensation for the escape of any dangerous thing or act of god or any exceptions mentioned above. Except any other circumstances.
Whereas, in Absolute liability, the party cannot claim exemptions and have to pay the mandatory compensation strictly. Even though, if the disaster or the damage had caused not by the negligence of defendant, he has to pay the money.
REFERENCE A Book, law of tort written by R.K.Bangiya
