Submitted To Submitted By

Dr. Rabia Gund Harshit yadav

Proff. UILS Roll No. 61
Section A B.A. LL.B
 1

Acknowledgement
I would like to express a deep sense of thanks and
gratitude to my Law of Torts Professor Rabia Gund who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this highly
conclusive assignment on the topic ‘ ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY’ which helped me in doing a lot of research
and consequently I rendered myself to reach depth of
the topic. I am really thankful to her. Secondly, I would
like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a
lot in researching the topic and finalizing this
assignment within the limited time frame.
 2

Absolute Liability
Introduction to Absolute Liability
The concept of absolute liability evolved in India after the case of M.C. Mehta vs
Union of India [1] famously known as the oleum gas leak case.

This is one of the historic cases in the Indian Judiciary. The case of M.C Mehta is

based on the principle of strict liability but with no exception were given and the

individual is made absolutely liable for his acts. It is based under this principle

that the defendant won’t be allowed to plead defense if he/she was at fault as it

was laid down in the Ryland vs Fletcher case. After the Bhopal gas leak case

many people lost their lives and are suffering from some of the fatal diseases

through the generation and because of this there was an urgent need to develop

a rule under strict liability which had no exceptions available to the defendant to

escape from the liability.

 3

The rule laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is much wider with

respect to the rules laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Ryland vs

Fletcher. It was propounded by the Supreme Court that where an enterprise is

engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and if any harm results

to anybody on account of the accident in operation, the enterprise would be

held strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by

the accident.

Essential Elements of Absolute Liability

The essential elements of Absolute liability are :-

● Dangerous things -
As per the rules laid down, the liability of escape of a thing from an individual’s
land will arise only when the thing which is collected is a dangerous thing that is
a thing which likely causes damage or injury to other people in person or their
property on its escape. In various cases which have happened all over the
world, the doctrine of strict liability has held a large body of water, gas,
electricity, vibrations, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires
etc are certain things which come under the ambit of dangerous things.

● Escape -
Anything which has caused damage or mischief should have escaped from the
area which was under the control of the defendant to come under the ambit of
absolute liability. Like it happened in the case of Read vs Lyon & Co. [2].
where the plaintiff was working as an employee in the defendant’s company
which was engaged in manufacturing shells. The accident happened while she
was on her duty that day within the company’s premises. It happened when a
piece which was being manufactured there exploded and due to which the
plaintiff suffered harm. After this incident a case was filed against the
defendant’s company but the court eventually let go of the defendant and gave
 4

the verdict that strict liability is not applicable here in this particular case. This
was declared by the court because the explosion that took place was within the
defendant’s premises and not outside. And the concept says that it should have
escaped the dangerous thing like shell here from the boundaries of the
defendant premise which didn’t happen and was missing over here. So, the
negligence on the part of the defendant could not be proved in the court.

● Non-Natural Use of Land -

Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not amount to non-natural
use of land but if one is storing it in large quantities like in a reservoir as it was
the case in Ryland vs Fletcher [3] then it amounts to non-natural use of
land. The difference between natural and non-natural use of land by keeping in
mind the surrounding social conditions. The growing of trees and plants on land
is considered as a natural use of land but if one starts growing trees which are
poisonous in nature then it will be considered as non-natural use of land. If an
issue arises between the defendant and the plaintiff even though the defendant
is using the land naturally, the court will not hold the defendant liable for his
conduct.

● Mischief
To make the person liable under this principle, the plaintiff at first needs to
show that the defendant had done the non-natural use of land and escaped the
dangerous thing which he has on his land which resulted in the injury further. In
the case of Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. vs Hydraulic Power Co.[4],
the defendant was assigned to supply water for industrial works. But he was
unable to keep their mains charged with a minimum pressure that was required
which led to the bursting of the pipeline at different places. This resulted in
causing heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved in the court of law. The
defendants were held liable in spite of this that they were not at fault. These are
the few rules where this doctrine is applied
 5

Scope of Rule of Absolute Liability

In most of the places, the rule of strict liability and absolute liability are seen as
exceptions in the law. And the individual is held liable only when he/she is at
fault. But, in such cases, the individual could be held guilty even if he is not at
fault. After the catastrophic Oleum Gas Leak case the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 was introduced with the main purpose of providing
immediate relief to people who are victims of the accident in which handling of
hazardous substances is involved. The agenda behind this act was that the act
will create a public liability insurance fund which will eventually be used for the
purpose of compensating the victims. Hazardous Substance under this act is
defined as any substance which by reason of its chemical or any properties is
liable to cause any damage to human beings, other living creatures, plants,
microorganism, property or to the environment. The term handling is described
in section 2(c) of the Public Liability Insurance Act,1991 which is the clear
expression of the rule of absolute liability laid down in M.C Mehta vs Union of
India.
 6

Evolution of Absolute Liability

The rule of absolute liability has evolved as a result of the old rule and it can’t
be applied in Indian Law Perspective as it is inappropriate for the reason
because its evolution is because of high industrial growth, agricultural use of
land etc. We all know that India is a developing country and with that, it is a
developing economy too and the doctrine of strict liability is a very old principle.
The old rule evolved when there was low or limited scope for industrial
development compared to today’s scenario, which is high in industrial growth in
the country.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY = (STRICT LIABILITY- EXCEPTIONS)

The scope of the rule of absolute liability is very wide in all its aspects when
compared with the old rule. As it does not have any exception laid under it in
the new rule. Not only it covers public negligence or fault but it also covers even
the personal injuries caused due to the misconduct of the neighbor. Now it
covers not only the one who occupies the land but also makes people liable who
are not the owner of the land. Absolute Liability has been brought up in the case
of M.C Mehta vs Union of India[5] also this is one of the landmark judgments in
India’s legal history. The rule which was laid down after this case was that any
enterprise which is engaged in any kind of hazardous or inherently dangerous
material which if there might result in any kind of harm then the enterprise
would be absolutely liable to compensate to all the people who are affected by
the same as it also happened in Bhopal Gas Tragedy case.
 7

The facts of the case go on like this that in the city of Delhi in 1985, there was
severe leakage of oleum gas in the month of December 1985. This incident took
place in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries which
belonged to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. and as a result of this accident an
advocate in the Tis Hazari Court had died because of the poisonous fumes and
many others were severely harmed. This incident led to the filing of PIL (Public
Interest Litigation) in the courts in India.
PIL is filed by a group of individuals or by any person in the supreme court or
high court of India. PIL is the tool to armor public interest and this instrument is
brought by the court, not by the aggrieved party. But is brought in by the court
of law or by any private party other than the aggrieved person in the society. It
was in SP Gupta vs Union of India [6] that the Supreme Court of India has
defined the term PIL in its elaborate form. The traditional rule of “locus standi”
 8

that held that a person whose right is infringed alone could file a PIL, has now
been removed by the Supreme Court in its decision over the period of time like
as declared in Badhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India[7], Parmanand
Katara vs Union of India[8] and many more. Now any public-spirited citizen
has all the rights and can approach the court for the public cause by filing a PIL
in the Supreme Court of India under article 32 and High Court under article 226
or even could be filed by approaching the Court of Magistrate under section 133
of CrPC.
For example, a construction company was constructing highways as per the
orders and for doing

It has to blast rocks with dynamite. The company carried out this activity with
extra precaution and care and in spite of this, some fragments of rock had flown
and damaged the neighboring houses. As a result of this, the owner of the
house sued the company for the damage they had caused by their Act. But, the
corporation raised an argument in the court that they cannot be sued because
they are free from the fault but this was not upheld by the court and they were
held absolutely liable for their wrongful acts and it is no defense that they took
extra care and precautions to prevent the harm which had been caused.

A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action taken by law for the
unliquidated damage and which is not exclusively breach of any contract or
promise or any other kind of obligations. There are principles in law which only
holds a person liable when he/she is at fault whereas in certain principles the
individual is held liable without him being at fault. This is the ‘no-fault liability
principle’ This no-fault liability principle has two main landmark judgments
Ryland vs Fletcher (strict liability) and MC Mehta vs Union of India[10]. In
both these cases the individual was made liable even though he was not
responsible for the damage caused.
 9

Case Laws of Absolute liability

1.M.C. Mehta vs Union of India 1986.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and
Fertilizers Ltd. complex at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the infamous Bhopal Gas Leak
and created a lot of panic in Delhi. One person died in the incident and a few were hospitalized. The
case lays down the principle of Absolute Liability and the concept of Deep Pockets.

Conclusion:-
The judgment is still considered as one of the major rulings in the field of environmental law
in our country. The judgment took up various new situations and ways of interpretation of
the laws and Fundamental Rights. The stances laid down in this case are still being used by
the court. Hence this case served as a landmark ruling in the history of Indian Judiciary.

The case is not all about the rights of people,compensation and economic losses but the
case also brought in front of the entire country the seriousness of environmental issues. The
disasters like this and Bhopal gas tragedy had acted very dangerously for the environment.
In the present world of technological development and industries the threat to the
environment is very expedient. As much this advancement is necessary for the
development of the society, there is an urgent need to focus attention towards
environmental problems being posed by this development. As each passing day we are
bringing ourselves closer to the end of the environment. Environment is a privilege provided
to us to everyone residing on this earth and it is everyone’s human right to enjoy a safe and
healthy environment and it is also everybody’s duty to work for it and contribute towards its
betterment.
 10

2. Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna

Ramchandra Nayan 1977
While the respondent was traveling in his car, the appellant's truck, driven by a
driver, hit the car and caused injuries to the respondent and damaged the car.
The ClaimsTribunal awarded compensation to the respondent, and The High
Court upheld the Tribunal's award. In the course of the judgment the High Court,
however, observed that every Person has a right to security and safety of his
person irrespective of the fault or negligence or carelessness and that every
person has a right to claim compensation, irrespective of proof of negligence on
the
Part of the driver.

Judgment:-

The Judgment of Court was delivered by This appeal is by special leave under Article 136 of
the Constitution by the two appellants against the judgment of the Bombay High Court
dismissing their appeal against the judg- ment of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal for Greater Bombay and confirming the award passed by the tribu- nal in favor of
the respondents and directing the Tribunal to decide the question of the liability of the
Insurance Company on its application that its liability is limited to Rs. 20,000 under section
110E of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 referred to as the Act after giving opportunity to the
parties.
 11

References:
[1] AIR 1987 S.C 1086

[2] (1947) A.C. 156

[3] (1868)

[4] (1914) 3 KB 772

[5] AIR 1987 S.C 1086

[6] AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365

[7] (1997) 10 SCC 549

[8] 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997

[9] (1868)

[10] AIR 1987 S.C 1086

 12

Bibliography
Books:-
Law of Torts By Dr. R.K. Bangia

Websites:-
1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-absolute-liability/
2. https://lawcirca.com/mc-mehta-and-union-of-india-1986-case-analysis-oleum-gas-le
ak-case/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/661219/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Mehta_v._Union_of_India
5. https://lawtimesjournal.in/m-c-mehta-anr-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors/