Comprehensive Study-Absolute liability on hazardous Gas Leakage

Introduction

As India is on the path of modernization thousands of industries, and machines are being installed in some part or the other of our country. Most industries use hazardous gas, metals, chemicals, and other substances. With the increasing numbers of industries responsibilities also increased to maintain those industries and machines whether there is any malfunction or any part of the machine is not working properly and needs renovation. But unfortunately, we have failed to prevent all those hazardous accidents that have caused innocent people's lives and polluted the environment. One such incident was a dangerous gas leakage from Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries that led to the establishment of a new principle called Absolute Liability.

What is Absolute Liability

Before Knowing Absolute Liability we should know the definition of Strict Liability.

Strict Liability- If any person brings something dangerous to his land by knowing that if the substance escapes it will cause harm to others and whether or not the act has happened for him he will be liable for the same. This comes under No Fault Liability.

The essential grounds are-

183. Non-natural use of land by bringing something harmful
183. presence of a dangerous object and it escapes consequently resulting in damage.

The rule of Strict Liability was established in 1868 by J. Blackburn in a case called 'Rylands v Fletcher'. [i]

1. Exceptions of Strict Liability-

183. If there was consent and common benefits between both the parties for keeping a dangerous substance on land.
183. The act has happened because of a third party's involvement.
183. The act happened because of Act of God(natural calamities like flood, landslide, fire, etc) was outside the control of the accused person.

1. Absolute Liability is a principle that says that when a person or enterprise is involved in a harmful or hazardous activity to make any profit and that object escapes from the land and causes any harm to anyone outside, the owner of the land is liable for the damages. [ii]

i.The essential grounds of Absolute Liability are the same as Strict Liability. Then where is the difference?

183. The main difference is that a person who becomes liable in strict liability can save himself under exceptional grounds. But Absolute Liability does not include any such ground.
183. In strict liability escape of dangerous substances from the land is necessary but in case of absolute liability if the dangerous substance remaining inside the area causes any harm the person who kept it there will be liable.
183. Strict Liability applies in those cases where harmful or dangerous substances are included. But Absolute Liability is applied when the substance is inherently dangerous.

So after discussing the differences, we can conclude that

Absolute Liability = Strict Liability – Exception

The Principle of Absolute Liability was established by Indian Jurists in the case of 'M.C. Mehta v UOI'.

Facts of the Case

· In the area of Kirti Nagar, Delhi Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industry which belongs to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Use to work in a population of around 2,00,000 people. The factory produced products like hard technical oil & glycerin soaps. M.C. Mehta, a social activist lawyer, filed a before the Supreme Court of India. He was seeking an order for closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant to a different area where the effect of threat or danger to the people's health and security will be lesser if any problem happens in the factory. The Supreme Court pended the petition and permitted the plant to restart its work.

· Then, on December 4th & 6th of 1985, a massive leakage of oleum gas occurred at Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries, which led to the death of one person and caused injuries to many others.

· The explosion and leakage of the gas from the tank were due to the collapse of the structure on which it was mounted. When the case was brought before the Court, another leakage occurred due to oleum gas escaping from the joints of a pipe.

· A practicing lawyer of Tis Hazari Courts also died due to oleum gas inhalation and several others were also affected after which the compensation claims were filed for the people who had suffered damage by the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association.

· This case was also getting importance because within a year it was a second incident where because of hazardous gas leakage people were dying. The first incident happened in Bhopal, Madhyapradesh where MIC gas was leaked from the Union Carbide Plant resulting in the death of 3,000 people and lakhs of other individuals were subjected to various diseases. [iii]

Judgment

In this case, the Supreme Court refused to oblige 19th-century English Law judgment and went further and implemented the absolute liability rule. As per Supreme Court as the socio and economic aspects of our country are changing every day we should also evolve our legal principles based on that. The Court evolved the principle of Absolute Liability and clearly expressed that the new principle is not subjected to any exceptions mentioned under the Strict Liability principle.

The then Chief Justice of India P N Bhagwati said that any enterprise that is engaged in inherently dangerous activities that pose a prospective threat to the health and safety of all those people working there and those people living in its surrounding area owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to that community that no harm will be resulted to them because of the factories inherently dangerous activities.

The court further clarified its position by saying that if because of negligence on the part of the industry any hazardous or highly toxic gas leaks, the company will be absolutely and strictly liable for the act and they will not be subjected to any exception mentioned in the rule of Strict Liability.

Reason for the Judgment

The Court gave two reasons for justifying the rule. Those are-

· The enterprise that is carrying on certain hazardous and inherently dangerous activities for their profit has a social obligation to compensate those suffering and it should include the cost within overhead cost.

· The company only has the power to maintain safety norms to prevent any kind of accidents.

Deep pocket Principle- The Hon'ble Court in this case also laid down a new principle whereby it emphasized that compensation payable to the sufferers will be in direct proportion to the magnitude and capability of the company. That means the company whose net worth and assets will be higher has to pay more compensation rather than a small company. This will also have a deterrent effect on the company. [iv]

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991- the main objective of this act was to provide public liability insurance that would be able to give immediate relief to those persons who have suffered because of any hazardous gas leakage incidents. [v]

Two recent incidents of Hazardous Gas leakage

1. Vizag Gas Leakage - On May 7, 2020, styrene gas leaked from a chemical plant owned by the South Korean company LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd in Gopalapatnam, Vizag. The leaked gas killed 11 people sickened over 1,000, and also affected many flora and fauna in the area. The NGT also asked LG Polymers to deposit Rs 50 crore with the collector. The tribunal determined the amount after factoring in the company's financial worth and the extent of damage. [vi]
2. Ludhiana Gas Leakage – On 30th April 2023 a neurotoxic gas Hydrogen Sulphide was leaked that claimed the lives of 11 people in the Giaspur area of Ludhiana. The Police suspected that a poisonous gas may have emanated from a partially open manhole in the locality and spread to the shops and houses nearby. [vii]

Conclusion

The absolute Liability principle is very important keeping in mind the modernised society and its shift towards industrialization. If these gruesome incidents were judged by the Strict Liability principle the industries surely have found out on or the other exception to save themselves from providing liability and the common people had to suffer. Besides the principle, various acts also came into force to prevent these hazardous incidents from happening. But still, now these incidents are happening. So, the need of the hour should be not to make new laws but to emphasize the appropriate implementation of those laws that are already present.

[i]< ref > (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330. < / ref >

[ii]< ref > See 'Asutosh Pattnaik & Anwesh Kumar Sarangi, 'Analysis of Absolute Liability in Reference to UCC vs. UOI, Law Bhoomi, (December 3, 2022) ( last visited June 8, 2024) < / ref >

[iii] < ref > See Kakoli Nath, MC Mehta v. Union of India: The Oleum Gas leak case, FINOLOGY, (Oct 17, 2022) ( last visited June 8, 2024 )

[iv]< ref > DR. R.K. BANGIA, LAW OF TORTS, 341-343 (26th edition. 2021) < / ref >

< ref > M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors AIR 1987 SCR (1) 819 < / ref >

[v]< ref > DR. R.K. BANGIA, LAW OF TORTS, 348 (26th edition. 2021) < / ref >

[vi]< ref > See Amit Kumar, Vizag Gas Leak: Why The NGT Should Have Applied Absolute, Not Strict, Liability, THE WIRE (May 13, 2020) (last visited June 8, 2024) < / ref >

[vii] < ref > See Tarsem Singh Deogan and Sukhpreet Singh, Ludhiana gas tragedy: 11 dead but magisterial probe finds 'no one responsible', Hindustan Times, (July 4, 2023) < / ref >