Dr. Vaishali V.

Jadhav 1

Absolute Liability

Question:
1. Discuss the difference between the rule of Ryland v. Fletcher and rule in M. C. Mehta’s case.

Evolution of Kinds of Liabilities:

Fault Liability No Fault Liability Absolute Liability

• Liability • Exceptions • No Exceptions

The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus
the exceptions.
Though the concept of absolute liability has its root as back as 19th century, but this concept
arrived quite late into India. Only after the Oleum Gas Leak Case (M. C. Mehta’s Case)
occurred, that the judiciary realized the need of strict and absolute enforcement of liability into
the Indian Context. Till now what was being followed, was the doctrine enshrined in the
Common Law, but it received modification in India in the form of the introduction to the concept
of absolute liability.
The modifications in the existing doctrine- Strict Liability of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher
(1868) led to the doctrine of absolute liability that prevented the defendants of M.C. Mehta v.
UOI Case from taking up any defence against payment of compensation:-

1
Associate Professor, Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, Pune. (Email Id. [email protected])

Absolute Liability by Dr. Vaishali Vijay Jadhav is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of M.C.Mehta v. Union of India,
A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086. This is one of the most landmark judgments which relates to the concept
of absolute liability.
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086
Facts:
The case deals with the aftermath of the oleum gas leakage from Shriram Food and Fertilizers
Ltd. Complex in Delhi. This company dealt with manufacture of hazardous chemicals. As the
accident occurred soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, it created huge panic.
The facts of the case are that some oleum (O3S- Fuming Sulphuric acid) gas escaped due to
leakage in a particular area in Delhi. Due to the leakage, many people were affected-death and
injury causing damage. The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of
strict liability and stated that the defendant would be liable for the damage caused without
considering the exceptions to the strict liability rule.
The Supreme Court held that, the strict liability rule despite being so stringent was inadequate in
modern times. This is because scientific advancements have made modern industries even more
dangerous and hazardous. Hence, the court laid down the absolute liability rule in this case.
Ratio (Rule): According to the rule of absolute liability, ‘if any industry/enterprise/person is
involved in any inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any
person due to any accident which occurred during carrying out such inherently dangerous and
hazardous activity, then the person (owners of industry) who is carrying out such activity will be
held absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties. The exception to the strict
liability rule also wouldn’t be considered’.
Application of the Rule:
The rule laid down in the case of M.C.Mehta v. Union of India was also followed by the
Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of
such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed the Public
Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.
According to the absolute liability rule, no exceptions of strict liability shall apply in certain
cases. Therefore, the people who cause damage will have unlimited liability to compensate
victims adequately. The Courts in India have applied this rule in many cases to create deterrence.
The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damages or consequences resulting from
the inherently dangerous activity. This will make such industries provide safety equipment to its
workers to prevent any mishap. Therefore, this will safeguard the interests of the workers and
will give them a refined, safe working atmosphere.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
This Act was introduced with the aim of providing immediate relief to people who are victims of
accidents in which handling of hazardous substances is involved. The main focus of the Act is to
create a public liability insurance fund which can be used to compensate the victims.
The Act states that any person who is carrying out inherently dangerous or hazardous activities
should have insurances and policies in place where he will be insured against liability to provide
compensation to the victims in case any accident takes place, and some injury occurs. This
liability is based on the principle of “no fault liability” or in other words, the rule of strict
liability and absolute liability. Inherently dangerous or hazardous substance covers under its
scope any mixture, preparation or substance which because of its properties can cause serious
harm to human beings, animals, plants, property or the environment. If any substance is
inherently dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then also the absolute liability of the
defendant arises.
In cases where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and quantum
of damages caused but in cases of absolute liability, compensation or damage to be paid is
exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as
industrial hazardous accidents generally causes mass death and destruction of property and
environment.
The principle of absolute liability was considered as a tool of prevention of mass destruction or
avoidance of danger to life of masses. But with the transition of the concept of liability, courts
started applying this concept whenever and wherever wellbeing of any individual is concerned.
Absolute liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of a single death without any mass
destruction of property or pollution of the environment. This was held in the case of Klaus
Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd., Delhi 201 (1997)
Facts: In this case, the plaintiff who was a German co-pilot suffered serious injuries after he
dived into the swimming pool of a five-star restaurant. After investigation, it was found out that
the pool had a defective design and also insufficient amount of water.
The injuries made the pilot paralyzed which consequently lead to his death after 13 years of the
accident. The court held that five-star hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care
to its guests. This was violated by Hotel Oberoi Inter-continental, New Delhi where because of
the defectively designed swimming pool, the plaintiff died a painful death. This made the hotel
absolutely liable for payment of damages to the plaintiff. The compensation of Rs.50 lakhs was
decided by the court for the plaintiff for the accident caused.
Significance of the Rule:
The rule of strict liability and absolute liability can be seen as exceptions. A person is made
liable only when he is at fault. But the principle governing these two rules is that a person can be
made liable even without his fault. This is known as the principle of “no fault liability.” Under
these rules, the liable person may not have done the act, but he’ll still be responsible for the
damage caused due to the acts. In the case of strict liability, there are some exceptions where the
defendant wouldn’t be made liable. But in the case of absolute liability, no exceptions are
provided to the defendant. The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no
matter what.
Though India follows the English laws since pre-independence, necessary amendments had been
made from time to time to suit the requirement of time. Many rules which were not quite
applicable according to the Indian context, had been modified accordingly. As far as the doctrine
of absolute liability is concerned, it was not touched upon even in the English laws. Slowly and
gradually change occurred. In the Indian context, it came even more lately. Only after two tragic
incidents of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Oleum Gas Leak occurred, the Indian judiciary realized the
need of modification of principles to suit the Indian Context. New principles have to be evolved
and new norms have to be laid down which would adequately deal with the new problems which
arise in a highly industrialised economy.

Other Landmark judgements delivered by the Supreme Court on the basis of principle of
absolute liability:
1. Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case i.e., Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 4 SCC 548
(1991):
Facts: Bhopal Gas tragedy, up till this day remains one of the world’s worst industrial
disasters. It occurred between 2-3 December, 1984 in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
This tragedy took place because of leakage of methyl isocyanate (MIC) Gas from the Union
Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) plant which manufactured pesticides. It is alleged that the
accident occurred because most of the safety measure systems were not functioning and
those which were functioning, were in a condition too poor to avert the mishap. The toxic
gas release engulfed the entire city and caused death of approx. 4000 people and nearly 1.5
lakhs were injured.
In February 1985, the Indian Government filed a case in the U.S. Supreme Court claiming
$3.3 billion from UCIL. But the case was transferred to India in 1986 on the grounds of
forum non conveniens. In the meantime, in 1985 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of
Claims) Act was passed to empower the Central Government to be the sole representative of
the victims for speedy justice. But instead of following the procedure of law, an out of court
settlement deal took place between GoI and UCIL for full and final settlement of $740
million. It also limited liability of UCIL for all civil and criminal claims. This deal was
widely criticized and a no. of review petitions were filed at the Supreme Court to question
the validity of the settlement order. The order was criticized because the compensation
settled was too less for all the victims and absence of re-opener clause would prevent any
future claim against UCIL. In the judgment delivered on October 3, 1991, all these
contentions were rejected by the Supreme Court by upholding the validity of the settlement
order except the clause quashing criminal proceedings.
One of the main issues which this tragedy took place was the issue of absolute liability.
Being absolutely liable makes the party anticipate for the worst, even if it is highly unlikely
so that possibility of occurring any mishap is reduced to zero. Even if the company keeps its
stand of taking all necessary precautions, responsibility still lies on them. This principle, if
applied accordingly, would not have only created a deterrence amongst companies for taking
full proof measures against any unforeseen event but would also make them fully liable for
the accident if caused. If not for the settlement order, then according to this principle, UCIL
would have been answerable for the sufferings of every single victim of this tragedy and
would also have to be compelled to provide the necessary and adequate compensation thus
satisfying the notion of proportionate justice. Understanding this principle, it was applied in
the M.C. Mehta Case. Thus, it can be said that the principle of Absolute liability evolved in
 India primarily because of the awakening created by the Bhopal Gas leak Tragedy and
Oleum Gas Case.
2. Uphaar Cinema Case i.e., Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. UOI ACC 114
(2003)
A fire had broken out in the Uphaar Cinema located in South Delhi during the screening of
the movie Border, on 13th of June 1997, due to faulty wire connections. It caused death of
59 people and injured 100. The fire was caused when bigger of the two installed
transformers caught fire. These transformers had developed issues repeatedly but no proper
repair work was conducted. Because of loose connections, sparking happened which lead to
a massive fire. Illegal extensions, blocked exists and additional seats added more to the
chaos.
It was held that even if there was no negligence but it is proved to the satisfaction of the
Court that there were statutory violations of the safety standards by the authorities, then
these violations will be sufficient for the court to hold the Respondents liable for
compensation to the victims of the unfortunate incident and also for damages. Moreover, as
the installation of the transformer was a non-natural use, the rule of both strict and absolute
liability will be applicable. It is a hazardous object which always carries a danger of short
circuit.

Conclusion:
In India, absolute liability is a standard of both tortuous and criminal liability. The principle of
strict and absolute liability is the ‘plaintiff oriented liability’ of criminal and tort law wherein it is
ensured that if the victim suffers loss of property or life, then it gets compensated as soon as
possible. No one must suffer due to negligence of others. Moreover, if the danger arises due to an
inherently hazardous substance, then the full responsibility to avoid any mishap must be rested
with the owner. In such cases, no leniency of any exception or defences must be given. The
provision of absolute liability assures this. It is a defence without any exception.
Earlier, owing to unforeseen or unnatural incidents or the absence of mens rea, the defendant
could get away clean-handed. Slowly and gradually, the need of a stricter form of liability was
felt which lead to the onset of this principle. Thus this principle evolved through transition to
render needful justice. Not just this particular doctrine, any law which becomes dormant due to
transformation of society, must be evolved.
The judiciary in this regards has the crucial role to play as it is the organ responsible to modify
laws to adjust to the demands of the society. The progressive approach undertaken by the Indian
Judges in the case of M.C. Mehta is appreciable and must be continued.

References:
1. Mr. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, Akshay Sapre ed., 27th ed., 2016, Lexis Nexis
2. Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts, R F V Heuston and R A Buckley Eds, 21st ed,
Sweet and Maxwell
3. Dr. Avtar Singh, Introduction to the Law of Torts, 3rd ed., Delhi Law House

_______________________________________