Case Comment: The Madras Railway Company v. Zamindari of Carvetinagarum (1874)

High Court Of Judicature At Madras (Decided on 3^rd July 1874)

This case[1] seems to be the exception of the principle of strict liability[2]. When we think of strict liability the first thing comes in our mind is Rylands v. Fletcher,[3] [4] in which it was held that even if the defendant is not negligent or rather, even if the defendant did not intensionally cause the harm or he is careful, still he could be held liable under this rule of strict liability. That is why strict liability is also called as ‘no-fault liability’. Over the decades it has been noted that in respect storage of large quantity of water for agricultural purposes, the courts in India have recognized an exception to the rule of strict liability. The reason cited by many court is that the storing of such water may be necessary for peculiar Indian conditions. 

In this case, there was an escape of water as a consequence of the bursting of two ancient tanks situated on the respondent’s zamindari. These tanks which had been in existence since ages, existed not merely for the benefit of the defendant alone, but the benefit of thousands of his ryots. The escaping water cause damage to the appellants’ property and three of the railway bridges were destroyed. The issues as far they are important to this Appeal, agreed by the parties were:

1. Whether the injuries complained of were the result of vis-major, or the act of God, or other influences beyond the Defendant’s control.
2. Whether the Defendant is liable for any, and if so what, damages sustained by the plaintiffs. 

So as far as the first question is concern it was shown that the tanks were old, ancient and constructed in the usual manner that the banks were properly attended to and kept in repair, that sluices, and usually found sufficient to prevent any overflow or bursting of the tanks in question for twenty years. That some days before there were unprecedented and unusually heavy rainfall residents had ever seen during last thirteen years residence and by witnesses for the Defendant as exceeding any rainfall for twenty years; i.e. this extraordinary flood which caused the neighboring river to overflow, that the banks of tanks were overflowed and finally carried away.

Now upon taking into consideration all relevant facts of the main case, I think in the first place that even though Defendant might not be guilty of negligence but by storing up water on his land, he rendered himself liable in damages as water escaped and injury caused by the plaintiff too. As we all know in Rylands v. Fletcher escape of dangerous things was considered as the main essential for the application of ‘No-fault liability’. Even in Rylands v. Fletcher, Lord Cranworth stated: “ If a person brings and accumulates on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbor, he does so at his peril”. Basically, Defendant is bound sic uti suo ut non laedat alenium which does not mean to use your property in such a manner as not to injure that of another but it means only that one must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another. So after all burdens came to third essential whether it was ‘natural use’ of land or ‘non-natural’ use of land. Now I think in second place that courts have given wider interpretation to ‘natural use ‘ of land.

As I think the existence of these tanks was of absolute necessity, not only for the Defendant’s estate, but for the sustenance of thousands of his ryots. They formed part of what may be termed a national system of irrigation, recognized by Hindu law and Mohammedan law, by regulations of East India company. Now I would like to quote Bentham’s argument based on his theory of ‘utilitarianism’ i.e. greatest good of the greatest number. In other words, Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to do?” The answer is that a person ought to act so as to produce the best consequences possible. Looking, then at the enormous benefit conferred on the public by these tanks; considering that, in the district at least, their existence is an absolute and positive necessity, for without them the land would be wilderness and the country a desert. So, it was held at the end by the privy council that because of peculiar Indian conditions, the escape of water collected for agricultural purposes may not be subject to strict liability.

In conclusion, I would say there was very broad interpretation given to ‘natural use’ of land as these tanks were within the statute[5] and so legally sound. More consideration was given to the greatest good of the greatest number. Judgment was more moral than just but still it was no erroneous.  

References:

[1] (1974) 1 I.A. 364 (P.C.)

[2] M.P Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, 2002 S.C 551.

[3] (1868) L.R 3 H.L .330.

[4] A.I.R 1987 S.C. 1086, at 1099

[5] Jones v. Festinoig Railway Company ( 3 Law Rep ., Q.B ., 733)