2016 Supreme(SC) 382

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 2016
Decided On : 10-05-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
In adversarial system of justice delivery case must be pleaded and controverted properly.
Under Doctrine of strict liability onus is on the respondent to prove its innocence. Strict liability however, has two exceptions – Escape (of water) due to plaintiff’s fault, or by act of God.
Acts of God deliberated upon. Act of God need not necessarily be unique or happening for the first time. Being extraordinary and not reasonably anticipated is enough.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Appellants alleging negligence on part of respondents in not maintaining low level of water in the dam to take care of ensuing rains – Appellants pleading loss of plantation, but not leading any evidence to show the loss – Respondents on the other hand, not properly controverting allegations of appellants – Also not showing that non-release of water would have breached the dam – Courts below also taking a myopic view – Neither the appellants prosecuted their case properly nor the respondents contested it appropriately. (Para 12)

       (b) Administration of Justice – Dam constructed and maintained by the respondents – Release of water from the dam – Appellants suffering losses – Onus of proving proper care having been taken in maintaining appropriate level of water in the dam in view of ensuing monsoon on respondents – Respondents expected to keep the dam in such condition as to avoid loss or damage to neighbours or passersby – Doctrine of strict liability – Strict liability has two exceptions – Escape (of water) due to plaintiff’s fault, or by act of God. (Para 15, 22)

       (1868) LR 3 HL 330; (1913) AC 263; (1947) AC 156 (HL); AIR 1965 SC 17; (1994) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (1996) 2 Scale 44; JT 2001 (1) SC 37 – Referred

       (c) Words and Phrases – Act of God – Direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature which could not have been resisted even foreseen – Acts occasioned by elementary forces of nature, unconnected with the agency of man or other cause – Examples: storm, tempest, lightning, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, extraordinary severe frost, or a tidal bore which sweeps a ship in mid-water – Not necessary to be unique or happening for the first time – Being extraordinary not reasonably anticipated is enough. (Para 22)

       (1875) LR 10 Ex.255; (1987) 3 SCC 400 – Relied upon

       (1917) AC 556 (HL) – Referred

       (d) Law of torts – Negligence – Heavy rains occasioning release of 60000cusecs of water from the dam resulting in loss of plantation of appellants – Respondent State not controverting properly – Not showing whether it had prior knowledge of ensuing heavy rains – What precautions it took if it had knowledge of heavy rains – State could have used meteorological data to be prepared – Respondents not discharging their onus – Held, there is a negligence on the part of the respondents which caused damage to the fields of the appellants. (Para 28)

       (e) Law of torts – Damages – Appellants suffering loss – Not adducing evidence to quantify the loss – Even then they are entitled to compensation – Exercising power under Article 142, Constitution of India, Court awarding Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. (Para 29, 30)

       (1863) 32 LJQB 279 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The essence of the issue that needs to be decided in the instant appeal is:

        “Whether gross negligence in not maintaining particular level of water in the dam by the respondents; that has resulted into damage and destruction to the plantation of the appellants, causing loss of livelihood, could be said to be an 'Act of God'?”

       It so happened that the respondents had constructed and maintained a dam. 60,000 cusecs of water from this dam was released, which flooded the land of the appellants and destroyed the plantation therein. As per the respondents, the water had to be released from the dam as it reached alarming level because of heavy rains and non-release would have breached the dam. The action was, thus, taken in public interest and it was occasioned because of the rains, which was an act of God. The appellants, on the other hand, contend that it was sheer negligence on the part of the respondents in not maintaining low level of the water keeping in mind the ensuing monsoon season and, therefore, the damage which the appellants have suffered has direct nexus or causal connection with the aforesaid act of negligence and it cannot be attributed to the rains. It is, thus, pleaded that the respondents cannot term it as an act of God and excuse themselves from the tortuous liability.

       Finding of the Court:

       The State was negligent in maintaining the dam.

       Result: Appeal allowed.