Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors.

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 673 > _;._ r A B > .... _r_ ...; y "" ## UNION OF INDIA _v._ # PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2002) ## MAY 5, 2008 [H.K. **SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU,** JJ.] _Railways Act, 1989_ - SS. _124(A) and 123(c)_ - _Compensation on account of 'untoward incident'_ - _Claim of_ - _Bonafide passenger fell on to railway track when trying to get_ c _into the moving train and run over by train_ - _Held:_ Comes _within expression 'accidental falling of_ a _passenger from_ a _train carrying_ passengers', _hence an 'untoward incident'_ - _Instant_ case is _covered bys. 124A_ - _It cannot be said that there_ was _no fault on part of Railways or that there_ was _contributory_ D _negligence_ - _Thus, order of High Court granting compensation upheld_ - _Interpretation of statutes ._ > _Interpretation of statutes_ - _Expression 'accidental falling of_ a _passenger from_ a _train carrying passengers'_ - _Two constructions_ - _First that_ a _person has actually got inside the_ E _train and thereafter falls down from the train, while second that_ a _person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so_ - _Held: Provision for compensation in the Act being_ a _beneficial piece of legislation, it should be given .liberal interpretation and not_ a _narrow one_ - _Hence, second_ F _interpretation which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose to be preferred_ - _Railways Act, 1989._ _Torts_ - _Principles of Strict liability-Applicability of- Held: Applies to statutory authorities like railways, public corporations or local bodies not working for private profit_ - _It_ G _cannot be said that body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be.liable_ - _Strict liability has no element of moral censure._ _Jurisprudence_ - _Law_ - _Law of strict liability_ de hors 673 H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. ~ A _statutory provisions in view of_ MC Mehta's case _should be developed_ - _With regard to_ cases _on account of 'untoward incident' new principles for fixing liability to be developed._ AB was holding a second class season ticket and a railway identity card. She died in a train accident. She fell B on to the railway track and was run over by train. AB's husband, mother and minor son filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal. PW-2 deposed before the tribunal that while he was at the railway station he found that the deceased fell down from the compartment of the c train when the train was moving and died on the spot. However, the tribunal held PW-2 to be an interested witness and disbelieved his evidence, though DW-1Station Master at the railway station corroborated the evidence of PW-2. The tribunal held that it was not an D 'untoward incident' within the meaning of the expression in s. 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers and rejected the claim. In appeal, the High Court held that the deceased sustained injuries in her E[anxiety to get into the train which was moving, thus, came ] within the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward incident', as defined ins. 123(c). It allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 12% F[from the date ][of ][the petition till the date ][of ][payment was ] granted. Hence, the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It would not legally make any difference G[whether the deceased was ][actu,C:lllY ][inside the train ][or ] whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In either case, it amounts to an 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined ins. 123(c) H[of ][the Railways Act. [Para 1 ][O] ][[681-D-E] ] ~ UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR 675 & ORS. =" _r_ 2.1 If the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute A are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict 8 interpretation. [Para 12] [682-B] _Kuna/ Singh vs. Union of India_ (2003) 4 SCC 524; _B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd._ (2002) 1 SCC 193; _Transport Corporation of India vs. ES/ Corporation_ (2000) 1 SCC 332; _Alembic Chemical Works_ Co. _Ltd. vs. The Workmen_ AIR 1961 SC 647; C _Jeewanla/ Ltd. vs. Appel/ate Authority_ AIR 1984 SC 1642; _Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mi/ls Ltd._ AIR 1981 SC 852; S. _M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager_ (2003) 4 SCC 27; _Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok_ - _Vishnu Kate and others_ 1995(6) sec 326 relied on. o o 2.2 It is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second E being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and F technical one. Hence, the latter of the two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred. [Para 11] [681-F, G] F 2.3 It is well known that in our country there are crores G of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' ins. 123(c) of the Act, large number of victims H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R. ·~ A of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) would be deprived of getting compensation under the Act. Hence, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger B traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. [Para 14] [684-D-F] - 3.1 In cases where the principle of strict liability C applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault. [Para 25] [687-H; 688-A] _MC. Mehta vs. Union of India_ AIR 1987 SC 1086 - 0[referred to. ] _Rylands v. Fletcher_ 1866 LRI Ex 265; _National Telephone_ Co. _vs. Baker_ (1893) 2 Ch 186, _Eastern and South African Telegraph_ Co. _Ltd. vs. Cape Town Tramways_ Co. _Ltd._ (1902) AC 381, _Hillier vs. Air Ministry_ (1962) CLY 2084; E _Rickards vs. Lothian_ (1913) AC 263; _Read vs. Lyons_ (1947) AC 156; _Dunne vs. North Western Gas Boards_ (1964) 2 QB 806; Att. Gen. vs. Geothermal Produce (N.Z.) Ltd., (1987) 2 NZ1 R 348; _Pearson vs. North Western Gas Board_ (1968) 2 All ER 669 - referred to. F _'Tort' by Salmond,_ 6th Edn p.12; _American Jurisprudence,_ 2nd Edn Vol 74 p. 632; _Torts by Michael Jones,_ 4th Edn. p. 247, 267; _'Torts' by Fleming_ 6th Edn p. 302; _'Torts' by Clerk and Lindsel/,_ 14th Edn; _Article by Prof Clarence Morris titled 'Hazardous Enterprises and Risk_ G _Bearing Capacity'_ Yale Law Journal, 1952 p. 1172; _Restatement of the Law of Torts,_ vol 3, p. 41; _'Tort Law' by Dias and Markesins_ 2nd Edn p. 355; _Article 'Non-natural User and Rylands vs. Fletcher,'_ Modern Law Review, 1961 vol 24, p 557; _Tort by Winfield and Jolowicz,_ 13th Edn p. 442H 443 - referred to. UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR 677 & ORS . • ~ ' G ' ' )' 3.2 Section 124A of the Act lays down strict liability A or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of s. 124A it is wholly. irrelevant as to who was at fault. The accident in which AB died is clearly not covered by the proviso to 124A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons B mentioneq in cl (a) to (e) of the proviso to s. 124A. Hence, the instant case is clearly covered by the main body of s. 124A, and not its proviso. [Paras 16 and 17) [686-A-C] 3.3 The decision in _M._ C. _Mehta's_ case related to a concern working for private profit. However, _tire_ same[c ] principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. [Para 40) [692-C] _M._ C. _Mehta vs. Union of India_ AIR 1987 SC 1086 - relied[D ] on. , > 3.4 It is true that attempts to apply the principle of _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ against public bodies have not on the > whole succeeded mainly because of the idea that a body e· which acts not for its owll profit but for the benefit of the > community should not be liable. However, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict li~bility has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit > the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a nonp negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spre11d it among the community generally. [Para 41] [692-D-E] p _Lairds vs. Nelms_ (1972) 406 US 797; _Dalehite vs._ U.S. - (1953) 346 US 15 referred to. _Administrative Law by PP Craig,_ 2nd Edn. p 446; _Administrative Law by Schwartz,_ 1984; _"Government Liability in Tort in the English and French Legal Systems"_ by C.J. Hanson - referred to. H· SUPREME COURT REPORTS 678 [2008] 7 S.C.R A C F A 4.1 In India, it is the duty of the State under our . Constitution, to function as a Welfare State, and look after the welfare of all its citizens. In various social welfare statutes the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people against death and injuries, B irrespective of fault. Thus, s. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, s. 124A of the Railways Act 1989, ss. 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Public Liability ~nsurance Act, 1991 etc. incorporate the principle of strict liability. [Para 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48] [693-A-E] C 4.2 Apart froni the principle of strict liability ins. 124A of the Railways Act and other statutes, the law of strict liability de hors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in _M.C. Mehta's_ case should be developed. New principles for fixing D liability in cases like the instant have to be developed. [Para 49] [693-F] _Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd._ vs. _The State of Gujarat_ JT - · 1994 (3) SC 492 referred to. E _Ashby_ vs. _White_ (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938; _Donoghue_ vs. _Stevenson_ (1932) AC 562 (619) (HL); _Rookes_ vs. _Barnard_ (1964) AC 1129 (1169) (HL); _Home Officer_ vs. _Dorset Yacht_ Co. _Ltd_ (1970). 2 All ER 294 (HL) - referred to. _American Restatement of Torts,_ Art 1 - referred to. 5.1 The submission of appellant that there was 11'.l fault on the part of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected. [Para 55]. G [694-F] 5.2 There was no good reason to disbelieve PW-2 because there is nothing to show that he had any motive to give false evidence, or that he was an interested witness. Further, hts evidence could not have been H discarded merely because he did not go to the spot and UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 679 > ~ • ' ·~ ' ~ help removing the dead body from the railway track. A Moreover, merely because the police did not record his statement does not mean that he was not present or gave false evidence. It is common knowledge that in our country often there is a large crowd on railway platforms, and it is simply not possible for the police to take the statement of B everyone there. [Para 7] [680-D-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2002. > From the Judgment and Order dated 25.6.2001 of the High c Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 1080/1998(B). P.S. Patwalia, S. Wasim A Qadri and Anil Katiyar for the A pellant. _.4_ B.V. Deepak for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **MARKANDEY** KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Kera la High Court dated 25.6.2001 passed in MFA No. 1080 of 1998-B. D E 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. .. 3. The facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed F before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by the husband, mother and minor son of one Smt. Abja who died on 23.5.1996 in a train accident at Varkala Railway station. The Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim, but the appeal against the said decision was allowed by the Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment[G ] dated 25.6.2001 and compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 12% from the date of the petition till the date of payment was granted. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. F 4. There is no dispute that Smt. Abja was a bona fide H [2008] 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 680 _1_ ~ A passenger holding a second class season ticket and an identity card issued by the Southern Railway. As per the forensic report the cause of death was due to multiple injuries due to the accident. The deceased fell on to the railway track and was run over by train No.6349 Parasuram Express. B 5. The Tribunal found that Smt. Abja was a bona fide passenger traveling by the train. 6. Before the Tribunal PW-2, K. Rajan, deposed that while he was at Varkala railway station he found one passenger falling c from the Parasuram Express and that the train had stopped. He further stated in his evidence that he went to the north side of the platform and saw the injured lying on the platform. He further stated that the person falling down was the lady who died on the spot. He also stated that the deceased fell down from the compartment of the train when the train was moving. 0 7. The Tribunal strangely enough held that PW-2 was an interested witness because if he was present on the spot he would have definitely helped the Station Master in removing the dead body from the railway track. Further, the police would have E definitely recorded his evidence. For this reason, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-2. We are, however, of the opinion that there was no good reason to disbelieve PW-2 . because there is nothing to show that he had any motive to give false evidence, or that he was an interested witness. Further. F his evidence could not have been discarded merely because he did not go to the spot and help removing the dead body from the railway track. Moreover, merely because the police did not record his statement does not mean that he was not present or gave false evidence. It is common knowledge th.at in our country G often there is a large crowd on railway platforms, and it is simply not possible for the police to take the statement of everyone there. 8. However. the evidence of DW-1, D. Sajjan. who was the Station Master at the railway station corroborates the H evidence of PW-2 DW-1 had deposed that he saw on~ girl 681 UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J] • ,. t running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she fell A down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason. the Tribunal held that this was not an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of the expression in Section 123( c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a B passenger from a train carrying passengers. 9. In appeal, the Kera la High Court was of the view that the . deceasedsustained injuries, even according to the respondents, in her anxiety to get.into the train which was moving. Hence, the High Court held that the deceased came within the expression[c ] 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an 'untoward incident', as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any D difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incid_ent' as defined in E Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. E 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', t~e first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter F falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and G not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which ... advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should - be preferred vide _Kuna/ Singh vs. Union of India_ (2003) **4** SCC .. 524(para 9), _8. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd._ (2002) 1 SCC **193 H** [2008] 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 682 ~ 4 A (para 12), _Transport Corporation of India_ vs. _ES/ Corporation_ (2000) 1 sec 332 etc. 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the B benefit of the person for whom th8 Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide _Alembic Chemical Works_ Co. _Ltd._ vs. _The Workmen_ AIR 1961 SC 647( para 7), _Jeewanlal Ltd._ vs. _Appellate Authority_ AIR c 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), _La/appa Lingappa and others_ vs. _Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd._ AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. _M. Nilajkar_ vs. _Telecom Distt. Manager_ (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc. 13. In _Hindustan Lever Ltd._ vs. _Ashok Vishnu Kate and others_ 1995(6) SCC 326 (vide para 42) this Court observed: D "In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in Workmen vs. American Express International Banking Corporation wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations: E The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the _imposture of literal construction must be avoided_ and the prodigality of its misappiication must be recognized and reduced. _Judges ought to be more concerned with the 'colour', the 'content' and the 'context' of such statutes_ (we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds). In the same opinion Lorq Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal F G H "' ~ ... UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 683 ,. A ~ linguistic considerations. In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Coort we had occasion to say: _"Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must._ o~ _necessity, receive a broad interpretation._ Where[B ] legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions." ~· Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation Second Edn., has dealt with the Functional Construction Rule in Part XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with in Part XX at p. 659 thus: "A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by- - (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code callerl a purposive-and-literal construction). or _f'_ '-' D E - (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive and strained construction)." _<_ ... At p. 661 of the same book, the author has considered the topic of "Purposive Construction·· in contrast with literal construction. The learned author has observed as under: "Contrast with literal construction - Although the term 'purposive construction' is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal construction. Lord Diplock said in 1975: 'If one looks back to the actual decisions of the [House of Lords] on questions of statutory construction over the last 30 years _one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the_ F G H ·~ (2008] 7 S.C.R. 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • A B _purely literal towards the purposive construction_ of statutory provisions'. The matter was summed up by Lord Diplock in this way - ... _I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the Act._ But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged remains one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it." c _**(emphasis supplied)**_ 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidenta ... ':11'.'ng of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' ir. vection 123( c) of the Railways Act, we D will be depriving a. largE.. number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybcdy cannr·. afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the E[expression ] _['!f'le ]_[will ][t>e ][depriving a large number of victims of ] train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona F[fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or ] pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 15. Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act defines 'passenger' G to mean a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123( c) of the Railways Act defines 'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states : ~ •H UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 685 F "124A. _Compensation on account of untoward incident._ A - When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then _whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration_ such as would entitle a passenger who·· has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who B has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by C the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: _--<_ Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - - (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; D - (b) self-inflicted injury; - (c) his own criminal act; E (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. , _1_ _Explanation_ - For the purposes of this section. "passenger" includes - - (i) a railway servant on duty; and G (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers. on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident". _(emphasis supplied)_ H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R. A 16. The accident in which Smt. Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to 124A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124A of the 8 Railways Act. and not its proviso. 17. Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. c 18. The theory of strict liability for hazardous activities can be said to have originated from the historic judgment of _Blackbum, J_ of the British High Court in _Rylands v. Fletcher_ 1866 LRI Ex 265. D E 19. Before this decision the accepted legal position in England was that fault, whether by an intentional act or negligence, was the basis of all liability (see Salmond on 'Tort', 6th Edn p.12) and this principle was in consonance with the then prevailing Laissez Faire Theory. 20. With the advance of industrialization the Laissez Faire Theory was gradually replaced by the theory of the Welfare State, and in legal parla'1ce there was a corresponding shift from positivism to sociolog1cal jurisprudence. )... F 21 It was realized that there are certain activities in industrial society which though lawful are so fraught with ~ possibility of harm to others that the law has to treat them as allowable only on the term of insuring the public against injury _irrespective of who was at fault._ The principle of strict liability G (also called no fault liability) was thus evolved, which was an exception to the general principle in the law of torts that there is no liability without fault, (vide American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn Vol 74 p. 632). As stated above, the origin of this concept of ,... liability without fault can be traced back to Blackburn, J's historic H decision in _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ (supra). ~ UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 687 22. The facts in that case were t)1at the defendant, who A owned a mill, constructed a reservoir to supply water to the mill. This reservoir was constructed over old coal mines, and the mill owner had no reason to suspect that these old diggings led to an operating colliery. The water in the' reservoir ran down the old shafts and flooded the colliery. Blackburn J. held the mill B owner to be liable, on the principle that "The person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape" .. C On appeal this principle of liability without fault was affirmed by the House of Lords (per Cairns, J.) but restricted to non-natural users vide (1868) ~ 3 HL 330. B 23. _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ (supra) in fact created a new legal principle (the principle of strict liability in the case of D hazardqus activities), though professing to be based on analogies drawn from existing law. The judgment is noteworthy because it is an outstanding example of a creative generalization. As Wig more writes, this epoch making judgment owes much of its strength to 'the broad scope of the principle E announced, the strength of conviction of its expounder, and the clarity of his exposition'. E 24. Strict liability focuses on _the nature of the defendants' activity_ rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide 'Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn. p. 247). There are F many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another The pr-inciple of strict liability st<!ites that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them _irrespective of any fa.ult on their part._ As Fleming says "permission to conduct G .such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing .the cost . of the accidents it causes, as . . an appropriate item of its overheads" (see Fleming on 'Torts' 6th Edn p 302). 25. Thus in cases where the prmciole . . . of strict liability . , H [2008) 7 S.C R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 688 _J-_ E A applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault. 26. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is two fold (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities 8 should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide 'Torts' by C Michael Jones 4th Edn p. 267). 27. As pointed out by Clerk and Lindsell (see 'Torts', 14th Edn) "The fault principle has shortcomings. The very idea suggests that compensation is a form of punishment for wrong 0[doing, which not only has the tendency ][to ][make tort overlap with ] criminal law, but also and more regrettably, implies that a wrongdoer should only be answerable to the extent of his fault. This is unjust when a wholly innocent victim sustains catastrophic harm through some trivial fault, and is left virtually without compensation". 28. Many jurists applaud liability without fault as a method for imposing losses on superior risk bearers. Their argument is that one who should know that his activity, even though carefully prosecuted, may harm others, and should treat this harm as a F cost of his activity. This cost item will influence pricing. and will be passed on to consumers spread so widely that no one will be seriously effected (vide Article by Prof. Clarence Morris entitled 'Hazardous Enterprises and Risk Bearing Capacity' published in Yale Law Journal, 1952 p. 1172). G G 29. The rule in _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher_ (supra) was subsequently interpreted to cover a variety of things likely to do mischief on escape, irrespective of whether they were dangerous per se e.g. water, electricity, explosions, oil. noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation, a flagpole, etc (see 'Winfield H and Jolowicz on 'Tort", 13th Edn p 425) vide _National Telephone_ UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR 689 ~ -\ -1 & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] Co. vs. _Baker_ (1893) 2 Ch 186, _Eastern and South African_ A _Telegraph_ Co. _Ltd. vs. Cape Town Tramways_ Co. _Ltd._ (1902) AC 381, _Hillier vs. Air Ministry_ (1962) CLY 2084, etc. In America the rule was adapted and expressed in the following words " one who carried on an ultra hazardous activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should B recognize as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra hazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm" (vide Restatement of the Law of Torts, vol 3, p. 41). c 30. _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher(supra)_ gave English Law one of its most creative generalizations which, for a long time, looked destin.ed to have a successful future. Yet, after a welcome start given to it by Victorian Judges the rule was progressively emasculated, until subsequently it almost became obsolete in England. According to Dias and Markesins (see 'Tort Law' 2nd Edn p. 355) one reason for this may well be that as a generalization justifying a shift from fault to strict liability it may have come prematurely. The 19th Century had not yet fully got over laissez faire, and it was only in the 20th Century that the concepts of social justice and social security, as integral parts of the general theory of the Welfare State, were firmly established. D E 31. As already mentioned above, the rule of strict liability laid down by Blackburn J. in _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ (supra) was restricted in appeal by Lord Cairns to non-natural users, the F word 'natural' meaning 'that which exists in or by nature, and is not artificial', and that was the sense in which it was used by Lord Cairns. However, later it acquired an entirely different meaning ie. that which is ordinary and usual, even though it may be artificial' vide _Rickards vs. Lothian_ (1913) AC 263 G followed in _Read_ vs _Lyons_ (1947)AC 156. Thus the expression 'non-natural' was later interpreted to mean 'abnormal', and since in an industrial society industries can certainly not be called 'abnormal' the rule in _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ (supra) was totally emasculated in these subsequent rulings. Such an interpretation, H [2008] 7 S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 690 _1_[.. ] A as Prof. Newark writes, 'would have surprised Lord Cairns and astounded Blackburn, J' (see article entitled 'Non-natural User and _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher,'_ published in Modern Law Review, 1961 vol 24, p 557). 32. In _Read_ vs. _Lyons_ (1947) AC 156) which was a case B of injury due to a shell explosion in an ammunitions factory, Lord Macmillan while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff made further restrictions to the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) by holding that the rule "derives from a conception of mutual duties of neighbouring landowners", and was therefore inapplicable to c personal injuries. He also held that to make the defendant liable there should be escape from a place under the defendant's control and occupation to a place outside his occupation, and since the plaintiff was within the premises at the time of the accident the injury was not due to escape therefrom. In this way D _[Read ]_[vs. ] _[Lyons ]_[(supra) destroyed the very spirit ][of ][the decision ] in _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher_ (supra) by restricting its principle to the facts of that particular case, instead of seeing its underlying juristic philosophy. 33. Apart from the above, some other exceptions carved E out to the rule in _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher_ (supra) are (a) consent of the plaintiff; (b) common benefit; (c) Act of stranger; (d) Act of God; (e) Statutory authority; (f) default of plaintiff etc. 34. In _Dunne_ vs. _North Western_ Gas _Boards_ (1964) 2 QB 806 Sellers L.J. asserted that the defendant's tiability in _Rylands_ F _vs. Fletcher(1868)_ LR 3 HC 330 "could simply have been placed on the defendants' failure of duty to take reasonable care", and it seems a logical inference from this that the Court of Appeals considered the rule to have no useful function in modern times. As Winfield remarks, the rule in _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ (supra), G by reason of its many limitations and exceptions, today seldom forms the basis of a successful claim in the Courts (see Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 13th Edn p. 442), and it seems that the rule "has hardly been taken seriously by modern English Courts", videAtt. Gen. vs. Geothermal Produce (N.Z.) Ltd., (1987) 2 NZ1 R H 348. ,... ·- 691 UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] .. ... 35. As Winfield remarks, because of the various limitations A and exceptions to the rule "we have virtually reached the position where a defendant will not be considered liable when he would not be liable according to the ordinary principles of negligence" (see Winfield on Tort, 13th Edn p. 443). _r_ 36. This repudiation of the principle in _Rylands vs. Fletcher_[B ] (supra) is contrary to the modern judicial philosophy of social justice. The injustice may clearly be illustrated by the case of _Pearson vs. North Western Gas Board_ (1968) 2 All ER 669. In that case the plaintiff was seriously injured and her husband was killed by an explosion of gas, which also destroyed their[c ] home. Her action in Court failed, in view of the decision in _Dunne vs. North Western Gas Board_ (1964) 2 QB 806. Thus the decline of the rule in _Rylands vs. Fletcher_ (supra) left the individual injured by the activities of industrial society virtually without adequate protection. D ~ 37. However, we are now witnessing a swing once again in favour of the principle of strict liability. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the crude oil spill in 1988 on to the Alaska coast line from the oil tanker Exxon Valdez, and other similar incidents have shocked the conscience of people all over the world and have aroused thinkers to the dangers in industrial and other activities, in modern society. E i 38. In England, the Pearson Committee recommended the introduction of strict liability in a number of circumstances (though none of these recommendations have so far been implemented, with the exception of that related to defective products). F 39. In India the landmark Constitution Bench decision of G the Supreme Court in _M._ C. _Mehta_ vs. _Union of India_ AIR 1987 SC 1086 has gone much further than _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher_ .... . (supra) in imposing strict liability. The Court observed "if the enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit the law must presume that such H [2008] 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 692 1 • A 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". The Court also observed that this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in _Rylands_ vs. B _Fletcher_ (supra). 40. The decision in _M._ C. _Mehta's_ case (supra) related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be C social utility undertakings not working for private profit. 41. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of _Rylands_ vs. _Fletcher_ (supra) ag3inst public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn. p. 0[446, mainly because ][of ][the idea that a body which acts not for ] its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is _because_ such public bodies benefit the community that it is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie E fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally. > 42. lnAmerica the U.S. Supreme Court in _Lairds_ vs. _Nelms_ (1972) 406 US 797, following its earlier decision in _Dalehite_ F vs. _U.S._ (1953) 346 US 15, held that the U.S. was not liable for damages from supersonic booms caused by military planes as no negligence was shown. Schwartz regards this decision as unfortunate (see Schwartz · Administrative Law', 1984). However, as regards private enterprises the American Courts G award huge damages (often running into millions of dollars) for accidents due to hazardous activities or substances 43. In France. the liability of the State is without fault, and the principle of strict liability applies (see C .J. Hanson "Government Liability in Tort in the English and French Lega: H Systems") 693 UNION OF INDIA _v._ PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] ... _A_ ' 44. In India, Article 38(1) of the Constitution states '1he State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life". 45. Thus, it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to function as a Welfare State, and look after the welfare of all its citizens. A B 46. In various social welfare statutes the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people against c death and injuries, irrespective of fault. 47. Thus, Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 provides for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, and this compensation is not for negligence on the part of the employer but is a sort of insurance D to workmen against certain risks of accidents. 48. Similarly, Section 124A of the ~ailways Act 1989, Sections 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 etc. incorporate the principle of strict liability. 49. However, apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124A of the Railways Act and other statutes, we can and should develop the law of strict liability de hors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra). In our opinion, we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases like the present one. 50. It is recognized that the Law of Torts is not stagnant but is growing. As stated by the American Restatement of Torts, Art 1; vide D. L. Lloyd: Jurisprudence: "The entire history of the development of the tort law shows a continuous tendency, which is naturally not uniform in all common law countries, to recognize as worthy of legal protection, interests which were previously not protected E F G H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1 A at all or were infrequently protected and it is unlikely that this tendency has ceased or is going to cease in future." 51. There are dicta both ancient and modern that the known categories of tort are not closed, and that novelty of a claim is not an absolute defence. Thus, in _Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd._ 8 _vs. The State of Gujarat._ JT 1994 (3) SC 492 (vide para 7), the Supreme Court observed: "Law of torts being a developing law its frontiers are incapable of being strictly barricaded". C 52. In _Ashby vs. White_ (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938, it was observed (vide Pratt C.J.): "Torts are infinitely various, not limited or confined". 53. In _Donoghue vs. Stevenson_ (1932)AC 562 (619) (HL), D it was observed by the House of Lords (per Macmillan, L.J.): ''The conception of legal responsibility may develop in adaptation to altering social conditions and standards. The criterion of judgment must adjust and adapt itself to the changing circumstances of life." E 54. The above view was followed in _Rookes vs. Barnard_ (1964) AC 1129 (1169) (HL) and _Home Officer vs. Dorset Yacht_ Co. _Ltd_ (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL). 55. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the F submission of learned counsel for the appellant there was no fault on the part of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected. G 56. Thus, there is no force in this appeal wJ11th is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs .. N.J. Appeal dismissed H