The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of strict liability to cases of tortuous liability involving hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, where negligence need not be proved and indemnification is imperative.

1. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal filed under clause 12 of the Letters Patent is whether the principle of strict liability as laid down by 5-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613 and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, would be applicable to grant of compensation to the parents and the minor daughter of the deceased Mohammad Ashraf Bhat who was killed on account of electrocution, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

2.1 Before we embark upon examining the facts it would be appropriate to extract the principle of strict liability as accepted, endorsed and followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments.

2.2 A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta (supra), after referring to the aft-quoted principles laid down by House of Lords in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330, has proceeded to hold that the Court must move with the march of time and evolve principles befitting the cause of justice and that law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society. It cannot afford to remain static. Keeping in view the aforesaid backdrop their Lordships opined as under:-

".................We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost of carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. ........................ This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards. We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher." (Emphasis added)

A perusal of the aforesaid para in unmistakable terms shows that a hazardous or an inherently dangerous activity can be tolerated only on the condition that such an enterprise would indemnify all those who suffer on account of carrying on of such dangerous activity, regardless of wh