A Single Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma while dismissing a Petition seeking Compensation for the death occurred due to the sudden felling of a tree on the road held that growing trees on the side of the road are not in non-natural use of the land or a hazardous activity to attract the Principle of Strict Liability.
The facts before the Court were that the daughter of Petitioners aged 18 years while she was walking on the road was critically injured when a Populas tree planted by the respondents on the road side fell on her due to heavy winds. The petitioners daughter died subsequently at a Hospital. The Petitioners raised a claim for compensation against the state on the Principle of Strict liability of the state as the respondents failed in maintaining the trees and were thus negligent in discharge of their duty. The petitiners placed reliance on a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in AIR 1994 SC 2667, in which it is held that State would be liable to pay compensation for the negligent act of its officers and principle of sovereign immunity would not absolve in from the same.
On the other hand the stand taken by the respondent/state was that on the fateful day, there was a huge storm which resulted in uprooting and breaking of many trees throughout the Kashmir Valley, therefore, the damage caused was due to natural calamity i.e., an act of God. The fact that the trees were on the road side and did not fall within the dangerous activity or non-natural use of land, as such, the liability of the respondents in this regard was very limited. This apart, the sudden act of nature which could not be foreseen and had resulted in falling of the trees would not make them liable to pay compensation. Thus the reason as given by the state for sudden fall of the tree was a wind storm running at the speed of 120 kmph and the same was an act of nature and as such no negligence could be attributable to the State.
While analysing the Principle of Strict liability the Court observed that Strict Liability is based on the principle that a person, who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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. It is well settled that the Strict liability would only be applicable if there is non-natural use of the land. The exception of these principles is concerned, where there is an act of God or by nature.
Further while relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. ManjulbenJayantilal Nakum and others”, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 552, the court held that growing trees on the side of the road are not in non-natural use of the land or a hazardous activity to attract the Principle of Strict Liability. Accordingly the court dismissed the Petition.
