Question

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. - Held in the case of

• A. Francis Caroli Vs. state
• B. Shriram food and Fertilisers case
• C. PUCL Vs. Union of India
• D. State of Punjab Vs. Mahinder Singh Chawla

Hint:

Remember the key distinction: \textbf{Strict Liability} (Rylands v Fletcher) = Liable without fault, but with exceptions (e.g., Act of God, Plaintiff's consent). \textbf{Absolute Liability} (M.C. Mehta case) = Liable without fault, with \textbf{no exceptions} for hazardous industries.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question describes the principle of Absolute Liability, a rule of tortious liability developed by the Indian Supreme Court. This principle is an evolution of the rule of Strict Liability (laid down in \textit{Rylands v. Fletcher}) but is far more stringent as it admits none of the exceptions available under strict liability.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The principle of absolute liability was laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086. This case is also famously known as the Oleum Gas Leak case or the Shriram Food and Fertilisers case, as it involved a leak of oleum gas from a unit of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Industries in Delhi. In this case, Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that the rule of strict liability was outdated for modern industrial societies. The court formulated the new principle of absolute liability, the essence of which is captured verbatim in the question: enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities have an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure no harm results, and if it does, they are liable to compensate the victims without recourse to any of the traditional exceptions like 'act of God' or 'act of a third party'.
Step 3: Final Answer:
This principle was held in the Shriram food and Fertilisers case.